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.
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. See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
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