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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 rejections under 112(b) are overcome.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9, and 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Klein reference (US Patent No. 5,681,992).
8. Regarding claim 1, the Klein reference discloses:
a braking system for a vehicle (V) (Column 1, line 50), wherein said braking system comprises a braking element (Column 1, line 50—brake) to receive an actuation signal an
apply a corresponding braking force (F) to at least one wheel of said vehicle or at least one disc of said vehicle (Column 4—lines 6-16);
wherein the braking force (F) applied by the braking element is a function of a value of said actuation signal (Column 4, lines 9-11);
the braking system further comprising a control circuit (3) arranged to:
receive a test braking request, indicative of an expected instantaneous deceleration value (a1);
determine the value of said actuation signal for applying the braking force (F) such that said vehicle would be decelerated according to said expected instantaneous deceleration value (p1);
actuate said braking element according to the determined value of the actuation signal (Column 6, lines 11-14);
wherein said control circuit (3) is arranged to determine said value of said actuation signal as a function of at least one of a predetermined expected friction value (Column 5, lines 61-64—by explicitly disclosing the ABS and the wheel deceleration signals correspond to vehicle deceleration implicitly disclose an expected friction value) between said braking means (Column 4, line 67—ABS braking) and at least one said wheel (Column 5, line 1—wheel deceleration signals corresponding to vehicle deceleration) or at least one said disc, a test mass value of the vehicle or said expected instantaneous deceleration;
control circuit (3) further being arranged to:
a) determine a real instantaneous deceleration value of the vehicle during actuation of the braking element (Column 5, lines 61-64—comparison of the decelerations determine the real value)
b) determine a real friction value between said braking element and at least one said wheel (Column 5, lines 61-64—by explicitly disclosing the ABS and the wheel deceleration signals correspond to vehicle deceleration implicitly disclose an expected friction value) or at least one said disc as a function of at least said real instantaneous deceleration value (Column 5, the deceleration value determined by the ABS and wheel deceleration signals) (Column 5, lines 61-64---based on this explicit disclosure a0 and a1 implicitly contain the friction values and determine the real friction value), the test mass value of that vehicle, and said actuation signal value.
The Klein reference discloses the invention as essentially claimed. However, the Klein reference fails to disclose wherein said predetermined expected friction value between said braking means and at least one said wheel or at least one said disc is arranged to be stored in a
storage media; and c) replace the predetermined expected friction value stored in the storage media with the determined real friction vale.
The examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the computing arts to store a value in a storage media, such as a memory, and replace the stored value with new values for the purpose of having information persist over time.
9. Regarding claim 2, the Klein reference further discloses:
wherein said control means is arranged to determine said value of the actuation signal as a function of at least one predetermined test condition (Column 5, lines 31-34);
said control circuit further being arranged to:
verify that at least one predetermined test condition is met (Column 5, lines 34-35);
wherein said control circuit is arranged to perform said steps a), b), and c) when said control means determines that at least one said predetermined test condition is met (Column 5, lines 31-34).
10. Regarding claim 9, the Klein reference further discloses:
wherein said braking element is electro pneumatic or electromechanical and the determined actuation signal value is an electrical signal (Column 3, lines 38-41).
11. Regarding claim 12, the Klein reference discloses:
a system for calibrating a braking system of a vehicle, wherein said braking system comprises a braking element arranged to receive an actuation signal and apply a corresponding
braking force (F) to at least one wheel of a said vehicle or at least one disc of said vehicle (Column 4—lines 6-16);
wherein the braking force (F) applied by the braking means is a function of a value of said actuation signal (Column 4, lines 9-11);
the braking system also comprising of a control circuit (3) arranged to:
receive a test braking request indicative of an expected instantaneous deceleration value (a1);
determine the value of said actuation signal to apply the braking force (F) such that the vehicle would be decelerated according to said expected instantaneous value (p1);
actuate said braking element according to the determined value of the actuation signal (Column 6, lines 11-14);
wherein said control circuit is arranged to determine the value of said actuation signal as a function of at least a predetermined expected friction value between said braking element, a test mass value of at least one vehicle, and said expected instantaneous deceleration (Column
5, lines 61-64—by explicitly disclosing the ABS and the wheel deceleration signals correspond to vehicle deceleration implicitly disclose an expected friction value);
said system for calibrating a braking system comprising calibration circuit (4) arranged to be associated with said braking system of at least one vehicle and to:
receive the value of the actuation signal determined by the control circuit (3);
a) determine a real instantaneous vehicle deceleration value during actuation of said braking means according to said value of the actuation signal (Column 5, lines 61-64—comparison of the decelerations determine the real value);
b) determine a real friction value between said braking element and at least one said wheel (Column 5, lines 61-64—by explicitly disclosing the ABS and the wheel deceleration signals correspond to vehicle deceleration implicitly disclose an expected friction value) or at least one said disc as a function of at least said real instantaneous deceleration value (Column 5, the deceleration value determined by the ABS and wheel deceleration signals) (Column 5, lines 61-64---based on this explicit disclosure a0 and a1 implicitly contain the friction values and determine the real friction value), the test mass value of that vehicle, and said actuation signal value.
The Klein reference discloses the invention as essentially claimed. However, the Klein reference fails to disclose wherein said predetermined expected friction value between said braking means and at least one said wheel or at least one said disc is arranged to be stored in a
storage media; and c) replace the predetermined expected friction value stored in the storage media with the determined real friction vale.
The examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the computing arts to store a value in a storage media, such as a memory, and replace the stored value with new values for the purpose of having information persist over time.
12. Regarding claim 13, the Klein reference further discloses:
wherein said control circuit is arranged to determine said value of the actuation signal as a function of at least one predetermined test condition (Column 5, lines 31-34);
said calibration circuit (4) of a braking system’s calibration system is further arranged to:
verify that at least one predetermined test condition is met (Column 5, lines 34-35);
wherein said calibration circuit is further arranged to perform said steps a), b), and c) when said calibration circuit determines that at least one said predetermined test condition is met (Column 5, lines 31-34).
13. Regarding claim 14, the Klein reference discloses:
a method for calibrating a braking system of at least one vehicle (V), wherein said braking system comprises a braking element arranged to receive an actuation signal and to apply a corresponding braking force (F) to at least one wheel of said vehicle or at least one disc of said vehicle (Column 4—lines 6-16);
wherein the braking force (F) applied by the braking element is a function of a value of said actuation signal (Column 4, lines 9-11);
the method comprising:
receive a test braking request indicative of an expected instantaneous deceleration value (a1);
determining the value of said actuation signal to apply the braking force (F) such that at least one said vehicle would be decelerated according to said expected instantaneous deceleration value (p1), as a function of at least one of a predetermined expected friction value stored in a storage media, a test mass value of at least one vehicle, or the value of said expected instant deceleration (Column 5, lines 61-64—by explicitly disclosing the ABS and the
wheel deceleration signals correspond to vehicle deceleration implicitly disclose an expected friction value);
actuating said braking means according to the determined actuation signal value (Column 6, lines 11-14);
a) determining a real instantaneous deceleration value of the vehicle during actuation of said braking element according to the value of said actuation signal (Column 5, lines 61-64—comparison of the decelerations determine the real value);
b) determine a real friction value between said braking element and at least one said wheel (Column 5, lines 61-64—by explicitly disclosing the ABS and the wheel deceleration signals correspond to vehicle deceleration implicitly disclose an expected friction value) or at least one said disc as a function of at least said real instantaneous deceleration value (Column 5, the deceleration value determined by the ABS and wheel deceleration signals) (Column 5, lines 61-64---based on this explicit disclosure a0 and a1 implicitly contain the friction values and determine the real friction value), the test mass value of that vehicle, and said actuation signal value.
The Klein reference discloses the invention as essentially claimed. However, the Klein reference fails to disclose wherein said predetermined expected friction value between said braking means and at least one said wheel or at least one said disc is arranged to be stored in a
storage media; and c) replace the predetermined expected friction value stored in the storage media with the determined real friction vale.
The examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the computing arts to store a value in a storage media, such as a memory, and replace the stored value with new values for the purpose of having information persist over time.
14. Regarding claim 15, the Klein reference further discloses: wherein the step of determining the value of said actuation signal is further carried out as a function of at least one predetermined test condition (Column 5, lines 31-34);
the method further comprising:
verify that at least one predetermined test condition is met (Column 5, lines 34-35);
wherein steps a), b), and c) are performed when the verification shows that at least one said predetermined test condition is met (Column 5, lines 31-34).
15. Regarding claim 16, the Klein reference further discloses:
a vehicle comprising a braking system according to claim 1 [Abstract].
16. Regarding claim 17, the Klein reference further discloses:
a vehicle comprising: a braking system; and a system for calibrating the braking system according to claim 12 (anticipated).
Response to Arguments
The Office responds to the Applicant’s arguments by simply reiterating the reasons provided in the first Office Action because such reasons are already provided for the rejection of the features of the claims highlighted by the Applicant as not being disclosed or suggested and the Applicant has ignored those reasons completely.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 and 10-11 objected to 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.
Conclusion
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 CHARLES J BRAUCH whose telephone number is (313)446-6511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM to 6 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.
/CHARLES JOSEPH BRAUCH/
Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/LONG T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747