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 Status
Claims 1-27 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues in the Remarks:
Regarding Claim 1 (pgs. 9-11), Applicant argues
Kolbe et al. (US 2012/0150362 A1) hereinafter Kolbe is directed to a distributed braking architecture that are not integrated in to a single package and Fujita (US 2008/0217123 A1) hereinafter Fujita fails to cure the deficiency. Examiner agrees as the references are not relied upon to teach a package containing all the cited components.
Making the components integral is unsupported by any of the prior art references and requires insufficient hindsight. While the prior art doesn’t explicitly disclosed an integrated unit, the modification are obvious since they do not produce an unexpected results (See MPEP 2144).
There is no motivation to combine the components in to a single integrated package as there is no specific reason cited as to why they would be combined. Page 4 of the Non-Final Office Action (3/6/2026) clearly states, “Applicant has not disclosed that a package or packages does anything more than produce predictable results (i.e. combine parts more efficiently, reduce part count, etc.).” The predictable results are the motivation to combine.
The reliance on the combination being merely an engineering choice that would yield predictable results is not proper as it only applies when the claimed structure and prior art alternatives are known equivalents that perform the same function in the same way to achieve the same result. Applicant has made no argument that the prior art of record does not disclose the claimed components. Examiner maintains the prior art discloses known equivalents. There is no reason to believe (nor does the Applicant appear to argue) that packaging the components together makes them perform differently in an unexpected way.
There is an improper shifting of the burden of proof that providing an integrated package is significant. The burden exists because the modifications in MPEP 2144.04 are prima facie obvious unless they produce a new or unexpected result.
Regarding Claims 10 and 19 (pg. 12), Applicant makes a similar argument as applied to claim 1. See Examiner’s response above.
Regarding Claims 2, 11, and 20 (pgs. 12-13), Applicant argues
Applicant argues that the second I/O port is not taught by Kolbe and the Office doesn’t attempt to write a motivation. Examiner respectfully disagrees as a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the components require inputs and outputs and the most common form of performing this function is an I/O port as evidenced by the additional references Heise and Fujita. Therefore, it isn’t mere speculation that an I/O port to connect a sensor is required as it already clearly exists within the cited references. Further, the office does provide a motivation as there would be a connection required to make the system work.
Regarding Claims 3 and 12 (pg. 14), Applicant makes a similar argument as applied to claim 1. See Examiner’s response above.
Regarding Claims 7, 16, and 24 (pg. 15), Applicant makes a similar argument as applied to claim 1. See Examiner’s response above.
Regarding Claims 8, 17, and 25 (pgs. 15-16), Applicant makes a similar argument as applied to claim 1 relating to integration of functions in to a single package. See Examiner’s response above. Additionally, adding additional wheel speed sensors would provide the predictable result of enabling the measurement of additional wheels. Applicant has not provided any evidence or argument that the mere duplication of parts would yield unpredictable results and merely states having the components co-located within a single package. Therefore, the combination is obvious in view of MPEP 2144.
Regarding Claims 9, 18, and 26 (pgs. 16-17), Applicant makes a similar argument as applied to claims 8, 17, and 25. See Examiner’s response above.
Regarding Claims 4, 13, and 21 (pg. 17), Applicant makes a similar argument as applied to claim 1 relating to integration of functions in to a single package. See Examiner’s response above. Additionally, adding an SPI to a circuit would provide known benefits and combining a known means of communication between components is analogous to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I).
Regarding Claims 5, 14, 22 (pgs. 17-18), Applicant makes a similar argument as applied to claims 4, 13, and 21. See Examiner’s response above.
Regarding Claims 6, 15, and 23 (pgs. 19-20), Applicant makes a similar argument as applied to claim 1 relating to integration of functions in to a single package. See Examiner’s response above. Additionally, adding an RPP to a circuit would provide known benefits and combining a known means of electronic protection is analogous to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I).
Regarding Claim 27 (pgs. 20), Applicant makes a similar argument as applied to claim 1. See Examiner’s response above.
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) 1-3, 7-9, 10-12, 16-20, and 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heise et al. (US 2013/0282249 A1) hereinafter Heise, Kolbe et al. (US 2012/0150362 A1) hereinafter Kolbe, and Fujita (US 2008/0217123 A1) hereinafter Fujita.
Claim 1:
Heise discloses an integrated device, comprising:
Heise doesn’t explicitly disclose at least one braking system interface circuit housed with the driver circuitry within the package comprising one or more of: a wheel speed sensor interface (WSSI) to receive wheel speed data from at least one wheel speed sensor of the vehicle; and a parking lock interface (PLI) to control an actuator to lock at least one wheel of the vehicle.
However, Kolbe discloses at least one braking system interface circuit housed with the driver circuitry within the package comprising one or more of: a wheel speed sensor interface (WSSI) to receive wheel speed data from at least one wheel speed sensor of the vehicle [¶21; may be discrete components].
Further, Fujita discloses a parking lock interface (PLI) to control an actuator to lock at least one wheel of the vehicle. [¶56]
Heise fails to explicitly disclose: a package with all the specific cited components.
However, it has been held that the use of a one piece construction in place of several parts secured together as a single unit would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice (See MPEP 2144.04 V B). Additionally, it has been held that the term "integral" is not limited to a fabrication of parts from a single piece of metal, but inclusive of other means for maintaining parts fixed together as a single unit. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Applicant has not disclosed that a package or packages does anything more than produce predictable results (i.e. combine parts more efficiently, reduce part count, etc.).
Since applicant has failed to provide persuasive evidence on the record that providing (an) integrated package(s) on a braking device is significant in any way, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Heise, Kolbe, and Fujita to include an integrated package with the cited components and thus produce nothing more than predictable results within the level of ordinary skill in the art, since it has been held that use of a one piece construction in place of several parts secured together as a single unit would be merely a matter of engineering choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious (See MPEP 2144.04 V B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the integrated braking system of Heise with the speed sensor of Kolbe to provide wheel speed to the controller thus enabling more efficient brake control.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the integrated braking system of Heise and Kolbe with the parking lock actuator and input/output unit of Fujita to enable control of a parking lock.
Claim 2:
Heise, Kolbe, and Fujita, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Heise discloses wherein the package comprises one or more of:
Heise doesn’t explicitly disclose a second I/O port configured to couple the WSSI to the at least one wheel speed sensor; and a third I/O port configured to couple the PLI to the actuator; and a (connection via I/O port).
However, Kolbe does disclose
Fujita discloses a third I/O port configured to couple the PLI to the actuator; [¶56; 222] as well as using a (connection via I/O port) [222].
Claim 3:
Heise, Kolbe, and Fujita, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Heise also discloses wherein the driver circuitry is coupled through the package to drive the switches of the bridge circuit [¶¶18-20; Fig. 1; 7, 8, 3a];
Heise doesn’t explicitly disclose the WSSI is coupled through the package to send the wheels speed data to a microcontroller external to the package, and the PLI is coupled through the package to receive a control signal from the microcontroller to control the actuator.
Kolbe discloses the WSSI is coupled through the package to send the wheels speed data to a microcontroller external to the package [¶21; may be discrete components].
Fujita discloses the PLI is coupled through the package to receive a control signal from the microcontroller to control the actuator. [¶56]
Claim 7:
Heise, Kolbe, and Fujita, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Heise also discloses wherein the driver circuitry is first driver circuitry housed within the package to control switches of a first bridge circuit associated with a first wheel of a vehicle, and wherein the integrated device further comprises: second driver circuitry housed within the package to control switches of a second bridge circuit associated with a second wheel of the vehicle. [Fig. 1; 7', 8', 3b]
Claim 8:
Heise, Kolbe, and Fujita, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 7.
Heise, Kolbe, and Fujita teaches all of the claimed features except for a second WSSI. It is noted that it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 VI B. Since applicant has not disclosed that placing a second WSSI within the system does anything more than produce predictable results (i.e. providing a wheel speed interface for an additional wheel), the mere duplication of the WSSI in the system is not considered to have patentable significance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify Heise, Kolbe, and Fujita to include a second WSSI, in order to predictably provide wheel speeds for an additional wheel.
Claim 9:
Heise, Kolbe, and Fujita, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 8.
Heise, Kolbe, and Fujita teaches all of the claimed features except for a second PLI. It is noted that it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 VI B. Since applicant has not disclosed that placing a second PLI within the system does anything more than produce predictable results (i.e. providing a parking lock an additional wheel), the mere duplication of the PLI in the system is not considered to have patentable significance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify Heise, Kolbe, and Fujita to include a second PLI, in order to predictably provide a parking lock for an additional wheel.
Claim 10:
Heise discloses a method, comprising: arranging driver circuitry configured to drive switches of a bridge circuit to control a braking mechanism of a vehicle
Heise doesn’t explicitly disclose arranging at least one braking system interface circuit with the driver circuitry within the package comprising one or more of: a wheel speed sensor interface (WSSI) to receive wheel speed data from at least one wheel speed sensor of the vehicle; and a parking lock interface (PLI) to control an actuator to lock at least one wheel of the vehicle.
However, Kolbe discloses arranging at least one braking system interface circuit with the driver circuitry within the package comprising one or more of: a wheel speed sensor interface (WSSI) to receive wheel speed data from at least one wheel speed sensor of the vehicle [¶21; may be discrete components].
Fujita discloses a parking lock interface (PLI) to control an actuator to lock at least one wheel of the vehicle. [¶56]
Heise fails to explicitly disclose: a package with all the specific cited components.
However, it has been held that the use of a one piece construction in place of several parts secured together as a single unit would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice (See MPEP 2144.04 V B). Additionally, it has been held that the term "integral" is not limited to a fabrication of parts from a single piece of metal, but inclusive of other means for maintaining parts fixed together as a single unit. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Applicant has not disclosed that a package or packages does anything more than produce predictable results (i.e. combine parts more efficiently, reduce part count, etc.).
Since applicant has failed to provide persuasive evidence on the record that providing (an) integrated package(s) on a braking device is significant in any way, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Heise, Kolbe, and Fujita to include an integrated package with the cited components and thus produce nothing more than predictable results within the level of ordinary skill in the art, since it has been held that use of a one piece construction in place of several parts secured together as a single unit would be merely a matter of engineering choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious (See MPEP 2144.04 V B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the integrated braking system of Heise with the speed sensor of Kolbe to provide wheel speed to the controller thus enabling more efficient brake control.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the integrated braking system of Heise and Kolbe with the parking lock actuator and input/output unit of Fujita to enable control of a parking lock.
Claim 11:
Heise, Kolbe, and Fujita, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 10.
Heise discloses further comprising: coupling
Heise doesn’t explicitly disclose coupling a second I/O port of the package to the WSSI; and coupling a third I/O port of the package to the PLI.
However, Kolbe does disclose
Fujita discloses coupling a third I/O port of the package to the PLI. [¶56; 222] as well as using a (connection via I/O port) [222].
Claim 12:
Heise, Kolbe, and Fujita, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 10.
Heise doesn’t disclose further comprising: coupling the WSSI through the package to send the wheel speed data to a microcontroller external to the package, and coupling the PLI through the package to receive a control signal from the microcontroller to control the actuator.
Kolbe discloses further comprising: coupling the WSSI through the package to send the wheel speed data to a microcontroller external to the package [¶21; may be discrete components].
Fujita also discloses coupling the PLI through the package to receive a control signal from the microcontroller to control the actuator. [¶56]
Claim 16:
Heise, Kolbe, and Fujita, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 10.
Heise also discloses wherein the driver circuitry comprises first driver circuitry within the package, and further comprising: arranging second driver circuitry within the package to control switches of a second bridge circuit associated with a second wheel of the vehicle. [Fig. 1; 7', 8', 3b]
Claim 17:
Heise, Kolbe, and Fujita, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 16.
Heise, Kolbe, and Fujita teaches all of the claimed features except for a second WSSI. It is noted that it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 VI B. Since applicant has not disclosed that placing a second WSSI within the system does anything more than produce predictable results (i.e. providing a wheel speed interface for an additional wheel), the mere duplication of the WSSI in the system is not considered to have patentable significance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify Heise, Kolbe, and Fujita to include a second WSSI, in order to predictably provide wheel speeds for an additional wheel.
Claim 18:
Heise, Kolbe, and Fujita, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 17.
Heise, Kolbe, and Fujita teaches all of the claimed features except for a second PLI. It is noted that it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 VI B. Since applicant has not disclosed that placing a second PLI within the system does anything more than produce predictable results (i.e. providing a parking lock an additional wheel), the mere duplication of the PLI in the system is not considered to have patentable significance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify Heise, Kolbe, and Fujita to include a second PLI, in order to predictably provide a parking lock for an additional wheel.
Claim 19:
Heise discloses a system, comprising: a main controller
Heise doesn’t disclose at least one braking system interface circuit housed with the driver circuitry within the second package comprising one or more of: a wheel speed sensor interface (WSSI) to receive wheel speed data from at least one wheel speed sensor of the vehicle and output the wheel speed data to the main controller; and a parking lock interface (PLI) configured to be controlled by the main controller to control an actuator to lock at least one wheel of the vehicle.
However, Kolbe discloses at least one braking system interface circuit housed with the driver circuitry within the second package comprising one or more of: a wheel speed sensor interface (WSSI) to receive wheel speed data from at least one wheel speed sensor of the vehicle and output the wheel speed data to the main controller [¶21; may be discrete components].
Fujita discloses a parking lock interface (PLI) configured to be controlled by the main controller to control an actuator to lock at least one wheel of the vehicle. [¶56]
Heise fails to explicitly disclose: a package with all the specific cited components.
However, it has been held that the use of a one piece construction in place of several parts secured together as a single unit would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice (See MPEP 2144.04 V B). Additionally, it has been held that the term "integral" is not limited to a fabrication of parts from a single piece of metal, but inclusive of other means for maintaining parts fixed together as a single unit. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Applicant has not disclosed that a package or packages does anything more than produce predictable results (i.e. combine parts more efficiently, reduce part count, etc.).
Since applicant has failed to provide persuasive evidence on the record that providing (an) integrated package(s) on a braking device is significant in any way, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Heise, Kolbe, and Fujita to include an integrated package with the cited components and thus produce nothing more than predictable results within the level of ordinary skill in the art, since it has been held that use of a one piece construction in place of several parts secured together as a single unit would be merely a matter of engineering choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious (See MPEP 2144.04 V B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the integrated braking system of Heise with the speed sensor of Kolbe to provide wheel speed to the controller thus enabling more efficient brake control.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the integrated braking system of Heise and Kolbe with the parking lock actuator and input/output unit of Fujita to enable control of a parking lock.
Claim 20:
Heise, Kolbe, and Fujita, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 19.
Heise discloses wherein the second package comprises one or more of:
Heise doesn’t explicitly disclose a second I/O port configured to couple the WSSI to the at least one wheel speed sensor; and a third I/O port configured to couple the PLI to the actuator ; (connection via I/O port).
However, Kolbe does disclose
Fujita discloses a third I/O port configured to couple the PLI to the actuator; [¶56; 222] as well as using a (connection via I/O port) [222].
Claim 24:
Heise, Kolbe, and Fujita, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 19.
Heise also discloses wherein the driver circuitry comprises first driver associated with a first wheel of the vehicle, and further comprising: second driver circuitry housed within the second package to control switches of a second bridge circuit associated with a second wheel of the vehicle. [Fig. 1; 7', 8', 3b]
Claim 25:
Heise, Kolbe, and Fujita, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 24.
Heise, Kolbe, and Fujita teaches all of the claimed features except for a second WSSI. It is noted that it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 VI B. Since applicant has not disclosed that placing a second WSSI within the system does anything more than produce predictable results (i.e. providing a wheel speed interface for an additional wheel), the mere duplication of the WSSI in the system is not considered to have patentable significance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify Heise, Kolbe, and Fujita to include a second WSSI, in order to predictably provide wheel speeds for an additional wheel.
Claim 26:
Heise, Kolbe, and Fujita, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 25.
Heise, Kolbe, and Fujita teaches all of the claimed features except for a second PLI. It is noted that it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 VI B. Since applicant has not disclosed that placing a second PLI within the system does anything more than produce predictable results (i.e. providing a parking lock an additional wheel), the mere duplication of the PLI in the system is not considered to have patentable significance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify Heise, Kolbe, and Fujita to include a second PLI, in order to predictably provide a parking lock for an additional wheel.
Claim(s) 4-5, 13-14, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heise, Kolbe, and Fujita as applied to claims 1, 10, and 19 above, and further in view of Korte et al. (US 2003/0106755 A1) hereinafter Korte.
Claim 4:
Heise, Kolbe, and Fujita, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Heise doesn’t explicitly disclose further comprising: a serial peripheral interface (SPI) circuit housed within the package to communicate external to the package.
However, Korte does disclose further comprising: a serial peripheral interface (SPI) circuit housed within the package to communicate external to the package. [¶¶88-89]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the integrated braking system of Heise, Kolbe, and Korte with the serial peripheral interface of Korte to provide a known means of communication between components.
Claim 5:
Heise, Kolbe, Fujita, and Korte as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 4.
Heise doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the driver circuitry and the at least one braking system interface circuit are configured to communicate external to the package using the SPI circuit.
However, Korte does disclose wherein the driver circuitry and the at least one braking system interface circuit are configured to communicate external to the package using the SPI circuit. [¶¶88-89]
Claim 13:
Heise, Kolbe, and Fujita, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 10.
Heise doesn’t explicitly disclose further comprising: arranging a serial peripheral interface (SPI) circuit within the package to communicate external to the package.
However, Korte does disclose further comprising: arranging a serial peripheral interface (SPI) circuit within the package to communicate external to the package. [¶¶88-89]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the integrated braking system of Heise, Kolbe, and Korte with the serial peripheral interface of Korte to provide a known means of communication between components.
Claim 14:
Heise, Kolbe, Fujita, and Korte, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 13.
Heise doesn’t explicitly disclose further comprising: coupling the driver circuitry and the at least one interface circuit to communicate external to the package using the SPI circuit.
However, Korte does disclose further comprising: coupling the driver circuitry and the at least one interface circuit to communicate external to the package using the SPI circuit. [¶¶88-89]
Claim 21:
Heise, Kolbe, and Fujita, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 19.
Heise doesn’t explicitly disclose further comprising: a serial peripheral interface (SPI) circuit housed within the second package to communicate external to the package.
However, Korte does disclose further comprising: a serial peripheral interface (SPI) circuit housed within the second package to communicate external to the package. [¶¶88-89]
Claim 22:
Heise, Kolbe, Fujita, and Korte, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 21.
Heise doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the driver circuitry and the at least one interface circuit are configured to communicate external to the second package using the SPI circuit.
However, Korte does disclose wherein the driver circuitry and the at least one interface circuit are configured to communicate external to the second package using the SPI circuit. [¶¶88-89]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the integrated braking system of Heise, Kolbe, and Korte with the serial peripheral interface of Korte to provide a known means of communication between components.
Claim(s) 6, 15, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heise, Kolbe, and Fujita as applied to claims 1, 10, and 19 above, and further in view of Infineon (IDS: TLE9183QK Bridge Driver IC) hereinafter Infineon.
Claim 6:
Heise, Kolbe, and Fujita, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Heise doesn’t explicitly disclose further comprising: reverse polarity protection (RPP) circuitry housed within the package and configured protect the bridge circuit.
However, Infineon does disclose further comprising: reverse polarity protection (RPP) circuitry housed within the package and configured protect the bridge circuit. [page 82; optional reverse battery protection diode]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the integrated braking system of Heise, Kolbe, and Fujita with the protection diode of Infineon to prevent damage from reverse polarity thus increasing durability.
Claim 15:
Heise, Kolbe, and Fujita, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 10.
Heise doesn’t explicitly disclose further comprising: arranging reverse polarity protection (RPP) circuitry housed within the package and configured protect the bridge circuit.
However, Infineon does disclose further comprising: arranging reverse polarity protection (RPP) circuitry housed within the package and configured protect the bridge circuit. [page 82; optional reverse battery protection diode]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the integrated braking system of Heise, Kolbe, and Fujita with the protection diode of Infineon to prevent damage from reverse polarity thus increasing durability.
Claim 23:
Heise, Kolbe, and Fujita, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 19.
Heise doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the at least one interface circuit further comprises: reverse polarity protection (RPP) circuitry housed within the package and configured protect the bridge circuit.
However, Infineon does disclose wherein the at least one interface circuit further comprises: reverse polarity protection (RPP) circuitry housed within the package and configured protect the bridge circuit. [page 82; optional reverse battery protection diode]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the integrated braking system of Heise, Kolbe, and Fujita with the protection diode of Infineon to prevent damage from reverse polarity thus increasing durability.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heise, Kolbe, and Fujita as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Ha et al. (US 2023/0339447 A1) hereinafter Ha.
Claim 27:
Heise, Kolbe, and Fujita, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 19.
Heise doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the main controller is a microcontroller, and further comprising: a Power Management Integrated Circuit (PMIC) housed in the first package with the main controller.
However, Ha does disclose wherein the main controller is a microcontroller, and further comprising: a Power Management Integrated Circuit (PMIC) housed in the first package with the main controller. [¶57]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the integrated braking system of Heise, Kolbe, and Fujita with the PMIC of Ha to better regulate the electricity fed to the controller thus enabling more efficient operation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cheng (CN 213534675 U) discloses an integrated brake system comprising a power chip, a main chip, an ASIC chip, an EPB control unit, a wheel speed sensor module, a data storage EEPROM module.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KURT P LIETHEN whose telephone number is (313)446-6596. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8 AM - 4 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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571)272-1196. 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.
KURT P. LIETHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights