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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 7, Item 330 should say "parking" not "paring". Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: the method claims are contingent as the conditions required for the method may not occur. See MPEP 2111.04.. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite a hydraulic line but the system is intended to operate with compressed air. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-4 and 11-14 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: detecting, 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 "case b)"] the EPB being configured to control a flow of compressed air to generate a brake force based on a pressure of the compressed air; and [translation page 2, ¶¶1-2, "spring-loaded brake cylinders are vented and thus clamped"] if the battery power is detected to be less than or equal to the reference voltage, discharging, by a solenoid valve, the compressed air into atmosphere by opening at least one orifice hole. [translation page 5, ¶4, specifically the vent 56]
Claim 2:
Feucht, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Feucht also discloses wherein the detecting of whether the battery power is less than or equal to the reference voltage comprises: entering an on state and supplying current if the battery power exceeds the reference voltage, and entering an off state and blocking the current supply if the battery power is less than or equal to the reference voltage, wherein the discharging of the compressed air into atmosphere comprises: when the current supply is blocked, opening the orifice hole by a solenoid valve to discharge the compressed air into atmosphere, and when the current is supplied, blocking the discharging of the compressed air by the solenoid valve receiving the current. [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]
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 hydraulic line configured to transfer the compressed air of the air tank [6]; an EPB valve configured to receive the compressed air through the hydraulic line and block or pass the flow of the compressed air [8] according to a control signal from the EPB controller [14]; an EPB chamber configured to generate a brake force based on the pressure of the compressed air supplied through the EPB valve [translation page 2, ¶¶1-2, "spring-loaded brake cylinders are vented and thus clamped"]; a branch line branched from the hydraulic line [line 6 to relay valve 18]; and a solenoid valve interposed in the branch line and configured to open the at least one orifice hole to discharge the compressed air into atmosphere when the battery power is less than or equal to the reference voltage [18 per "case b)"].
Claim 4:
Feucht, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 3.
Feucht also discloses wherein the detecting of whether the battery power is less than or equal to the reference voltage comprises: supplying current to the solenoid valve as a switch is turned on if the battery power exceeds the reference voltage, and blocking the current supply to the solenoid valve as the switch is turned off if 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]
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 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 detect 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 "case b)"] a solenoid valve configured to discharge the compressed air into atmosphere if the battery power is detected to be less than or equal to the reference voltage. [translation page 5, ¶4, specifically the vent 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 hydraulic line configured to transfer the compressed air of the air tank [6]; an EPB valve configured to receive the compressed air through the hydraulic line, and block or pass the flow of the compressed air [8] according to a control signal from the EPB controller [14]; an EPB chamber configured to generate a brake force according to the pressure of the compressed air supplied through the EPB valve [translation page 2, ¶¶1-2, "spring-loaded brake cylinders are vented and thus clamped"]; and a branch line branched from the hydraulic line [line 6 to relay valve 18], wherein the solenoid valve is interposed in the branch line, and configured to discharge the compressed air into atmosphere by opening at least one orifice hole when the battery power is less than or equal to the reference voltage [18 per "case b)"].
Claim 13:
Feucht, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 12.
Feucht also discloses wherein the low-voltage detector is configured to be turned on or off according to the battery power to supply or block current, and the solenoid valve is configured to block or discharge the compressed air based on whether the current is supplied or blocked. [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]
Claim 14:
Feucht, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 13.
Feucht also discloses wherein the low-voltage detector comprises: a switch configured to be turned on to supply the current if the battery power exceeds the reference voltage, and be turned off to block the current supply if 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]
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) 10 and 20 is/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 ordinary 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 ordinary skill in the art would know to set a reference voltage to whatever would be required to ensure the system is operable.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feucht as applied to claims 4 and 14 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 4.
Feucht doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the solenoid valve comprises: a coil configured to receive the current under the control of the voltage detector; a spring interposed in the coil; and a rod configured to block the orifice hole by moving in a direction that presses the spring when the current is supplied to the coil, and open the orifice hole by moving in an opposite direction by an elastic restoring force of the spring when the current supply is blocked.
However, Lewis does disclose wherein the solenoid valve comprises: a coil configured to receive the current under the control of the voltage detector; a spring interposed in the coil; and a rod configured to block the orifice hole by moving in a direction that presses the spring when the current is supplied to the coil, and open the orifice hole by moving in an opposite direction by an elastic restoring force of the spring when the current supply is blocked. [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 15:
Feucht, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 14.
Feucht doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the solenoid valve comprises: a coil configured to receive the current under the control of the low-voltage detector; a spring interposed in the coil; and a rod configured to block the orifice hole by moving in a direction that presses the spring when the current is supplied to the coil, and open the orifice hole by moving in an opposite direction by an elastic restoring force of the spring when the current supply is blocked.
However, Lewis does disclose wherein the solenoid valve comprises: a coil configured to receive the current under the control of the low-voltage detector; a spring interposed in the coil; and a rod configured to block the orifice hole by moving in a direction that presses the spring when the current is supplied to the coil, and open the orifice hole by moving in an opposite direction by an elastic restoring force of the spring when the current supply is blocked. [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 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feucht and Lewis as applied to claims 5 and 15 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 branch 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 branch line through an opening formed in the branch line to block the compressed air or open the orifice hole; 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 branch 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 discloses comprising: supplying the current by the switch being turned on if the battery power exceeds 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 when the current is supplied to the coil of the solenoid valve and the first rod member moves in an outer direction of the branch line to press the spring, and the second rod member is pulled out through the opening formed in the branch line by the movement of the first rod member, closing the orifice hole.
However, Lewis does disclose when the current is supplied to the coil of the solenoid valve and the first rod member moves in an outer direction of the branch line to press the spring, and the second rod member is pulled out through the opening formed in the branch line by the movement of the first rod member [Figs. 1-3; col. 3 lines 6-50].
Further, Lou discloses closing the orifice hole. [¶133]
Claim 8:
Feucht, Lewis, and Lou as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 6.
Feucht discloses comprising: blocking the current supply by the switch being turned off if 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 when the current supply to the coil of the solenoid valve is blocked and the first rod member moves in an inner direction of the branch line by the elastic restoring force of the spring, and the second rod member is inserted into the branch line through the opening formed in the branch line by the movement of the first rod member, opening the orifice hole.
However, Lewis discloses when the current supply to the coil of the solenoid valve is blocked and the first rod member moves in an inner direction of the branch line by the elastic restoring force of the spring, and the second rod member is inserted into the branch line through the opening formed in the branch line by the movement of the first rod member, [Figs. 1-3; col. 3 lines 6-50]
Further, Lou discloses opening the orifice hole. [¶133]
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 outside through the orifice hole of the branch line; reducing an air pressure in the air tank and the EPB chamber; and generating a parking brake force by the reduced air pressure in the EPB chamber. [translation page 2, ¶¶1-2, "spring-loaded brake cylinders are vented and thus clamped"]
Claim 16:
Feucht and Lewis, as shown in the rejection above, discloses 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 branch 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 branch line through an opening formed in the branch line to block the compressed air or open the orifice hole; and a connecting member configured to connect the first rod member and the second rod member.
However, Lewis does disclose wherein the rod comprises: a first rod member configured to move with a linear displacement outside the branch line depending on whether the current is supplied to the coil; a second rod member connecting member configured to connect the first rod member and the second rod member. [Figs. 1-3; col. 3 lines 6-50]
Further, Lou also 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 17:
Feucht, Lewis, and Lou as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 16.
Feucht doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the rod is configured to: if the current is supplied to the coil and the first rod member moves in an outer direction of the branch line to press the spring, and the second rod member is pulled out through the opening formed in the branch line by the movement of the first rod member, close the orifice hole.
However, Lewis discloses wherein the rod is configured to: if the current is supplied to the coil and the first rod member moves in an outer direction of the branch line to press the spring, and the second rod member is pulled out through the opening formed in the branch line by the movement of the first rod member [Figs. 1-3; col. 3 lines 6-50].
Further, Lou discloses close the orifice hole. [¶133]
Claim 18:
Feucht, Lewis, and Lou as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 17.
Feucht doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the rod is configured to: if the current supply to the coil is blocked, the first rod member moves in an inner direction of the branch line by the elastic restoring force of the spring, and the second rod member is inserted into the branch line through the opening formed in the branch line by the movement of the first rod member, open the orifice hole.
However, Lewis does disclose wherein the rod is configured to: if the current supply to the coil is blocked, the first rod member moves in an inner direction of the branch line by the elastic restoring force of the spring, and the second rod member is inserted into the branch line through the opening formed in the branch line by the movement of the first rod member [Figs. 1-3; col. 3 lines 6-50].
Further, Lou discloses open the orifice hole. [¶133]
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feucht and Lewis as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Wallaert (US 5,442,515) hereinafter Wallaert.
Claim 19:
Feucht and Lewis, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 15.
Feucht doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the low-voltage detector comprises: a first current supply line configured to apply current to the coil; and a second current supply line configured to receive the current of the coil, wherein the switch is interposed in the first current supply line.
However, Wallaert does disclose wherein the low-voltage detector comprises: a first current supply line configured to apply current to the coil; and a second current supply line configured to receive the current of the coil, wherein the switch is interposed in the first current supply line. [Fig. 1; col. 7, lines 15-40]
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 measurement device of Wallaert to provide a means of measuring the voltage in a circuit thus ensuring reliable 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