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 1-20 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 12-13 of the Remarks that Feucht fails to disclose, “when the battery power is greater than the reference voltage, maintaining by a solenoid valve, a fluid line through which compressed air flows from the EPB chamber to atmosphere in a closed state; and when the battery power is less than or equal to the reference voltage, opening, by the solenoid valve, the fluid line,” as recited in claim 1. Specifically, the Applicant argues that because Feucht relies on a second power supply as a backup source to power the solenoid, does not anticipate the claims. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as there is nothing in claim 1 that precludes the use of a backup power supply.
It should be noted that claim 2 makes a further differentiation in that it adds a limitation blocking current supplied to the solenoid valve. However, it doesn’t differentiate current and it could be reasonably interpreted as blocking the current from the first power supply which is used under normal conditions (i.e. during normal voltage reading). The Examiner relies on newly cited Galm (US 2006/0006742 A1) to teach this limitation in an obviousness type rejection.
Additional arguments on pages 14-16 rely on the independent claim being allowable. Examiner respectfully disagrees as discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation, " In the instant Specification, ¶65 discusses the size of orifice hole and spring constant affecting the time to discharge but does not compare discharge rates.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feucht et al. (WO 2017/032617 A1) hereinafter Feucht.
Claim 1:
Feucht discloses a method of controlling parking of a vehicle, the method comprising: determining, by a low-voltage detector, whether a battery power supplied to an electronic parking brake (EPB) controller is less than or equal to a reference voltage, [translation page 3, ¶¶2-3, specifically voltage falling below the predetermined limit value] the EPB controller being configured to control a flow of compressed air to an EPB chamber that generates a brake force based on a pressure of the compressed air; and and [translation page 2, ¶¶1-2, "spring-loaded brake cylinders are vented and thus clamped"; page 6 describes the operation with respect to Figs. 1-2] when the battery power is greater than the reference voltage, maintaining by a solenoid valve, a fluid line through which compressed air flows from the EPB chamber to atmosphere in a closed state; and [translation page 6, ¶3, in the "basic state" Figs 1-2 solenoids 10 and 12 are closed thus maintaining pressure in the system] when the battery power is less than or equal to the reference voltage, opening, by the solenoid valve, the fluid line. [translation page 2, ¶1; page 5, ¶4; the vent 56 is intiated when 66 is insufficient causing 68 to power the ECU thus commanding 12 to vent 22 causing the piston 46 to release pressure in the braking line 38/40 out through valve 56]
Claim 3:
Feucht, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Feucht also discloses wherein the vehicle comprises: an air tank configured to store therein the compressed air [2 is a pressurized air supply which a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize as being an air tank]; a first fluid line connecting the air tank and the EPB chamber; [6]; a first valve disposed on the first fluid line and configured to in response to a control signal from the EPB controller, selectively supply the compressed air of the air tank to the EPB chamber or discharge compressed air from the EPB chamber [8]; a second fluid line branched from the first fluid line and connecting the first fluid line and atmosphere [line 6 to relay valve 18]; and the solenoid valve being disposed on the second fluid line and configured to close or open the second fluid line [18 per "case b)"].
Claim 11:
Feucht discloses a parking control system of a vehicle, comprising: an electronic parking brake (EPB) controller configured to control a flow of compressed air to an EPB chamber; an EPB chamber configured to generate a brake force based on a pressure of the compressed air; [translation page 2, ¶¶1-2, "spring-loaded brake cylinders are vented and thus clamped"] a low-voltage detector configured to determine whether a battery power supplied to the EPB controller is less than or equal to a reference voltage; and [translation page 3, ¶¶2-3, specifically voltage falling below the predetermined limit value] a solenoid valve configured to when the battery power is greater than the reference voltage, maintain a fluid line through which compressed air flows from the EPB chamber to atmosphere in a closed state; and [translation page 6, ¶3, in the "basic state" Figs 1-2 solenoids 10 and 12 are closed thus maintaining pressure in the system] when the battery power is less than or equal to the reference voltage, open the fluid line. [translation page 2, ¶1; page 5, ¶4; the vent 56 is intiated when 66 is insufficient causing 68 to power the ECU thus commanding 12 to vent 22 causing the piston 46 to release pressure in the braking line 38/40 out through valve 56]
Claim 12:
Feucht, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 11.
Feucht also discloses further comprising: an air tank configured to store therein the compressed air [2 is a pressurized air supply which a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize as being an air tank]; a first fluid line connecting the air tank and the EPB chamber [6]; a first valve disposed on the first fluid line and configured to selectively supply the compressed air of the air tank to the EPB chamber or discharge compressed air from the EPB chamber in response to a control signal from the EPB controller [8]; a second fluid line branched from the first fluid line [line 6 to relay valve 18] and connecting the first fluid line and atmosphere, wherein the solenoid valve is disposed fluid line and configured to close or open the second fluid line [18 per "case b)"].
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) 2, 4, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feucht as applied to claims 1, 3, and 12 above, and further in view of Galm (US 2006/0006742 A1).
Claim 2:
Feucht, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Feucht doesn’t explicitly disclose further comprising: supplying current to the solenoid valve when the battery power is greater than the reference voltage, and blocking the current supplied to the solenoid valve when the battery power is less than or equal to the reference voltage.
However, Galm does disclose further comprising: supplying current to the solenoid valve when the battery power is greater than the reference voltage, and blocking the current supplied to the solenoid valve when the battery power is less than or equal to the reference voltage [¶18, within the context of Feucht: the primary source 66 would be blocked in favor of 68].
Further, Feucht discloses wherein the solenoid valve closes the fluid line when the current is supplied and opens the fluid line when the current is blocked. [translation page 2, ¶1; page 5, ¶4; the vent 56 is intiated when 66 is insufficient causing 68 to power the ECU thus commanding 12 to vent 22 causing the piston 46 to release pressure in the braking line 38/40 out through valve 56]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the parking system of Feucht with the backup power supply of Galm to supply necessary voltage to operate the parking brake thus preventing failure.
Claim 4:
Feucht, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Feucht doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the vehicle further comprises a switch connected to the solenoid valve and the method further comprises: supplying current to the solenoid valve as the switch is turned on when the battery power is greater than the reference voltage, and blocking the current supplied to the solenoid valve as the switch is turned off when the battery power is less than or equal to the reference voltage.
However, Galm does disclose wherein the vehicle further comprises a switch connected to the solenoid valve and the method further comprises: supplying current to the solenoid valve as the switch is turned on when the battery power is greater than the reference voltage, and blocking the current supplied to the solenoid valve as the switch is turned off when the battery power is less than or equal to the reference voltage. [¶18, within the context of Feucht: the primary source 66 would be blocked in favor of 68]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the parking system of Feucht with the backup power supply of Galm to supply necessary voltage to operate the parking brake thus preventing failure.
Claim 13:
Feucht, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Feucht doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the low-voltage detector is configured to supply current to the solenoid valve when the battery power is greater than the reference voltage and block the current supplied to the solenoid valve when the battery power is less than or equal to the reference voltage, and wherein the solenoid valve closes the fluid line when the current is supplied and opens the second fluid line when the current is blocked.
However, Galm does disclose wherein the low-voltage detector is configured to supply current to the solenoid valve when the battery power is greater than the reference voltage and block the current supplied to the solenoid valve when the battery power is less than or equal to the reference voltage, and wherein the solenoid valve closes the fluid line when the current is supplied and opens the second fluid line when the current is blocked. [¶18, within the context of Feucht: the primary source 66 would be blocked in favor of 68]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the parking system of Feucht with the backup power supply of Galm to supply necessary voltage to operate the parking brake thus preventing failure.
Claim 14:
Feucht, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Feucht doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the low-voltage detector comprises: a switch configured to be turned on to supply the current to the solenoid valve when the battery power is greater than the reference voltage, and be turned off to block the current supplied to the solenoid valve when the battery power is less than or equal to the reference voltage.
However, Galm does disclose wherein the low-voltage detector comprises: a switch configured to be turned on to supply the current to the solenoid valve when the battery power is greater than the reference voltage, and be turned off to block the current supplied to the solenoid valve when the battery power is less than or equal to the reference voltage. [¶18, within the context of Feucht: the primary source 66 would be blocked in favor of 68]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the parking system of Feucht with the backup power supply of Galm to supply necessary voltage to operate the parking brake thus preventing failure.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feucht as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Lewis et al. (US 6,029,682) hereinafter Lewis.
Claim 5:
Feucht, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 3.
Feucht doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the solenoid valve comprises: a coil configured to receive the current; a spring interposed in the coil; and a rod configured to move by the spring and the coil, and including an orifice hole, the orifice hole being configured to discharge compressed air from the second fluid line to atmosphere.
However, Lewis does disclose wherein the solenoid valve comprises: a coil configured to receive the current; a spring interposed in the coil; and a rod configured to move by the spring and the coil, and including an orifice hole, the orifice hole being configured to discharge compressed air from the second fluid line to atmosphere. [Figs. 1-3; col. 1 line 55 to col. 2, line 54]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the parking system of Feucht with the control valve of Lewis to provide a known means of providing a failsafe valve in the event of a power failure.
Claim(s) 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feucht and Lewis as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Lou (US 2007/0022987 A1) hereinafter Lou.
Claim 6:
Feucht and Lewis, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 5.
Feucht doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the rod comprises: a first rod member configured to move with a linear displacement outside the second fluid line based on whether the coil is energized; a second rod member having the orifice hole formed therein, and inserted into an inner space of the second fluid line; and a connecting member configured to connect the first rod member and the second rod member. [Figs. 1-3; col. 3 lines 6-50]
However, Lewis discloses wherein the rod comprises: a first rod member configured to move with a linear displacement outside the second fluid line based on whether the coil is energized; a second rod member
Further, Lou discloses opening via an orifice hole [¶133]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the parking system of Feucht and Lewis with the orifice of Lou to provide alternatively known configuration of a shuttle valve that would produce predictable results.
Claim 7:
Feucht, Lewis, and Lou as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 6.
Feucht also discloses comprising: supplying the current to the coil when the battery power is greater than the reference voltage [in "case b)" the current supplied from the first power supply is cut off and replaced with the second power supply which opens the vent].
Feucht doesn’t explicitly disclose moving the first rod member as current flows into the coil, and as the first rod member moves, moving the second member such that the orifice hole is positioned outside the second fluid line, and closing the second fluid line by the second rod member.
However, Lewis discloses moving the first rod member as current flows into the coil, and as the first rod member moves, moving the second member such that the orifice hole is positioned outside the second fluid line, and closing the second fluid line by the second rod member. [Figs. 1-3; col. 1 line 55 to col. 2, line 54]
Claim 8:
Feucht, Lewis, and Lou as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 6.
Feucht also discloses comprising: blocking the current supplied to the coil when the battery power is less than or equal to the reference voltage [in "case b)" the current supplied from the first power supply is cut off and replaced with the second power supply which opens the vent].
Feucht doesn’t explicitly disclose moving the first rod member by an elastic restoring force of the spring; and as the first rod member moves, inserting the orifice hole of the second rod member into the second fluid line and opening the second fluid line through the orifice hole.
However, Lewis discloses moving the first rod member by an elastic restoring force of the spring; and as the first rod member moves, inserting the orifice hole of the second rod member into the second fluid line and opening the second fluid line through the orifice hole. [Figs. 1-3; col. 1 line 55 to col. 2, line 54; col. 3 lines 6-50]
Claim 9:
Feucht, Lewis, and Lou as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 8.
Feucht also discloses comprising: discharging the compressed air stored in the air tank and the EPB chamber through the orifice hole; reducing air pressure in the air tank and the EPB chamber; and generating a parking brake force based on the reduced air pressure in the EPB chamber. [translation page 2, ¶¶1-2, "spring-loaded brake cylinders are vented and thus clamped"]
Claim(s) 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feucht.
Claim 10:
Feucht, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Applicant’s disclosure fails to identify the criticality of the claimed limitation(s). Therefore, the limitation(s) has/have not been given patentable weight. It would have been an obvious design choice at the time the invention as made to set a reference voltage to 16V.
Furthermore, applicant's disclosure fails to identify the criticality of the claimed limitation "reference voltage is 16V.". Therefore, the limitation(s) has/have not been given patentable weight. It would have been an obvious design choice at the time the invention as made to set the reference voltage is 16V since a person having ofdinary skill in the art would know to set a reference voltage to whatever would be required to ensure the system is operable.
Claim 20:
Feucht, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 11.
Applicant’s disclosure fails to identify the criticality of the claimed limitation(s). Therefore, the limitation(s) has/have not been given patentable weight. It would have been an obvious design choice at the time the invention as made to set a reference voltage to 16V.
Furthermore, applicant's disclosure fails to identify the criticality of the claimed limitation "reference voltage is 16V.". Therefore, the limitation(s) has/have not been given patentable weight. It would have been an obvious design choice at the time the invention as made to set the reference voltage is 16V since a person having ofdinary skill in the art would know to set a reference voltage to whatever would be required to ensure the system is operable.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feucht and Galm as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Lewis.
Claim 15:
Feucht and Galm, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 14.
Feucht doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the solenoid valve comprises: a coil configured to receive the current; a spring interposed in the coil; and a rod configured to move by the spring and the coil and including an orifice hole, the orifice hole being configured to discharge compressed air from the second fluid line to atmosphere.
However, Lewis does disclose wherein the solenoid valve comprises: a coil configured to receive the current; a spring interposed in the coil; and a rod configured to move by the spring and the coil and including an orifice hole, the orifice hole being configured to discharge compressed air from the second fluid line to atmosphere [Figs. 1-3; col. 1 line 55 to col. 2, line 54; col. 3 lines 6-50].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the parking system of Feucht with the control valve of Lewis to provide a known means of providing a failsafe valve in the event of a power failure.
Claim(s) 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feucht, Galm, and Lewis as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Lou.
Claim 16:
Feucht, Galm, and Lewis as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 15.
Feucht doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the rod comprises: a first rod member configured to move with a linear displacement outside the second fluid line depending on whether the current is supplied to the coil; a second rod member having the orifice hole formed therein, and inserted into an inner space of the second fluid line; and a connecting member configured to connect the first rod member and the second rod member.
However, Lewis discloses wherein the rod comprises: a first rod member configured to move with a linear displacement outside the second fluid line depending on whether the current is supplied to the coil; a second rod member
Further, Lou discloses opening via an orifice hole [¶133].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the parking system of Feucht, Galm, and Lewis with the orifice of Lou to provide alternatively known configuration of a shuttle valve that would produce predictable results.
Claim 17:
Feucht, Galm, Lewis and Lou as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 16.
Feucht doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein when the current is supplied to the coil and the first rod member moves in an outer direction of the second fluid line to press the spring, and the second rod member is pulled out such that the orifice hole is positioned outside the second fluid line, and the second fluid line is closed by the second rod member.
However, Lewis discloses wherein when the current is supplied to the coil and the first rod member moves in an outer direction of the second fluid line to press the spring, and the second rod member is pulled out such that the orifice hole is positioned outside the second fluid line, and the second fluid line is closed by the second rod member. [Figs. 1-3; col. 3 lines 6-50]
Claim 18:
Feucht, Galm, Lewis and Lou as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 17.
Feucht doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein when the current supply to the coil is blocked, the first rod member moves in an inner direction of the second fluid line by an elastic restoring force of the spring, the orifice hole of the second rod member is inserted into the second fluid line and the second fluid line is opened through the orifice hole.
However, Lewis discloses wherein when the current supply to the coil is blocked, the first rod member moves in an inner direction of the second fluid line by an elastic restoring force of the spring, the orifice hole of the second rod member is inserted into the second fluid line and the second fluid line is opened
Further, Lou discloses open the orifice hole. [¶133]
Claim 19:
Feucht, Galm, Lewis and Lou as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 18.
Feucht also discloses wherein the compressed air storage in the air tank and the EFB chamber is discharged through the orifice hole of the solenoid valve [Fig. 1, Item 24].
Applicant’s disclosure fails to identify the criticality of the claimed limitation(s). In the instant Specification, ¶65 discusses the size of orifice hole and spring constant affecting the time to discharge but does not compare discharge rates. Therefore, the limitation(s) has/have not been given patentable weight. It would have been an obvious design choice at the time the invention as made to set a discharge rate of the compressed air of the EFB chamber through the orifice hole as slower than a discharge rate through the first valve.
Furthermore, applicant's disclosure fails to identify the criticality of the claimed limitation "a discharge rate of the compressed air of the EFB chamber through the orifice hole is slower than a discharge rate through the first valve." Therefore, the limitation(s) has/have not been given patentable weight. It would have been an obvious design choice at the time the invention as made to set a discharge rate of the compressed air of the EFB chamber through the orifice hole is slower than a discharge rate through the first valve since it's one of only three options: slower, faster, or the same rate.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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