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 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 1-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In Re 1,19 the claim(s) last clause contains a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation each of the at least two control units is in turn connected to at least one of the wheel speed sensors on the at least one additional axle, and the claim also recites the wheel speed sensors on the at least one additional axle being connected only to one of the at least two control units (examiner emphasis added) which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Examiner finds claim requires either at least two sensors on additional axle, each sensor with a direct connection to a different one of the control unit, as supported per instant fig 2 Z1 additional axle; OR one sensor on additional axle is only connected to one control unit as supported per instant fig 1. Examiner finds claim 1 confounds instant embodiments of figs 1 and 2. Examiner notes the embodiments are patentably distinct, structurally distinct, and not useable together, and therefore cannot be embodied as positively required recitations in the same claim. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined and are therefore indefinite.
Dependent claims rejected due to dependency from rejected base claim.
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) 1,4,5,7,11-15,17-19,21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Nikishin DE 112016005158T5 (see IDS and attached machine translation).
In Re 1, Nikishin teaches
1. A brake system for the electronically controlled braking of wheels on at least two main axles of a vehicle via wheel brakes of the brake system(title abstract figs 1-2), the brake system comprising:
a plurality of wheel speed sensors (7l-7n fig 1), wherein the at least two main axles (3l,3m) and at least one additional axle (4n) have at least one of the plurality of wheel speed sensors disposed thereon for outputting wheel speed signals on a basis of determined wheel speeds of the wheels on the at least two main axles and of the wheels on the at least one additional axle (paras 30-31 DE document, bottom pg 8 machine translation);
at least two control units (8,10) for generating and outputting brake control signals, wherein the wheel brakes (note 13 or 5l,5m) on the at least two main axles are configured to be controlled on a basis of the brake control signals (paras 30-31 DE document, top pg 9 machine translation);
the wheel speed sensors on the at least two main axles being connected to the at least two control units via main (taken merely as nomenclature) data lines (see the solid line from 7l and dashed line from 7m at top of fig 1) such that each of (note the diagrammed branched lines Y shaped connection from 7l and 7m at top of fig 1 to both control units 8 and 10) the at least two control units is configured to receive the determined wheel speeds via the wheel speed signals for each wheel on the at least two main axles to which at least one wheel speed sensor is assigned (inherent); and,
each of the wheel speed sensors on the at least one additional axle being connected only to one (7n top of fig 1 connected only to control unit 8) of the at least two control units via an additional (7n has an additional dedicated line, diagrammed as solid) data line, and each of (see 35 USC 112b rejection above) the at least two control units is in turn connected to (mechanically, all vehicle components are connected together in vehicle) at least one of the wheel speed sensors on the at least one additional axle (at least all figs and paras).
In Re 4, Nikishin teaches each of the at least two control units is connected to a same number of the wheel speed sensors on the at least two additional axles via the additional data lines (7n to 8) without (7n not connected to 10) one of the wheel speed sensors on the at least one additional axle being connected to more than one of the at least two control units.
In Re 5, Nikishin teaches at least one of (Markush):
the wheel speed sensors assigned to a same additional axle are connected to a same of the at least two control units via the additional data lines for dividing the plurality of wheel speed sensors among the at least two control units in an axle-by-axle manner (3n axle wheel sensors 7n only connected to 8); and,
at least a subset of the wheel speed sensors assigned to the same additional axle are connected to different ones of the at least two control units via the additional data lines for dividing at least some of the plurality of wheel speed sensors among the at least two control units in a wheel-by-wheel manner (optional).
In Re 7, Nikishin further teaches a wheel brake is assigned to all wheels of the at least two main axles for braking the wheels of the at least two main axles of the vehicle in a wheel-by-wheel manner (fig 1).
In Re 11, Nikishin further teaches a corresponding one of the at least two control units is configured to generate the brake control signals on the basis of the wheel speed signals from the wheel speed sensors on the at least two main axles (bottom pg 8 top pg 9).
In Re 12-15 Nikishin teaches:
12. The brake system of claim 1, wherein the at least two control units each have a main terminal for connecting the wheel speed sensor on one of the at least two main axles and an additional terminal for connecting the wheel speed sensor on one of the at least one additional axle (the control units inherently have terminals for electrical connections for the sensor wires, whether main or additional Nikishin, and AAPA instant US PGPub para 5 -).
13. The brake system of claim 12, wherein: each of the plurality of wheel speed sensors connected to a corresponding one of the at least two control units via the main data line is correspondingly connected to the main terminal of the corresponding one of the at least two control units and is assigned a separate main terminal on the corresponding one of the at least two control units (see unique connections); and, each of the wheel speed sensors connected to the corresponding one of the at least two control units via the additional data line is connected to an own, separate additional terminal of the corresponding one of the at least two control units and/or is assigned an own, separate additional terminal on the corresponding one of the at least two control units (see unique connections fig 1 Nikishin, and AAPA instant US PGPub para 5).
14. The brake system of claim 12, wherein the main data lines each have a branching Y connection such that the corresponding one of the plurality of wheel speed sensors arranged on the at least two main axles is simultaneously connected to the at least two control units via the respective Y connection and via the corresponding ones of the main terminals (see diagrammed Y connections of 7l and 7m top fig 1, Nikishin, and AAPA instant US PGPub para 5).
15. The brake system of claim 12, wherein one of the wheel speed sensors arranged on the at least two main axles is connected to the corresponding one of the at least two control units via the main terminal in a directly wired manner via the main data line; and, two wheel speed sensors of the plurality of wheel speed sensors are assigned to each wheel on the at least two main axles and each of the at least two wheel speed sensors of a wheel is connected to another of the at least two control units in a directly wired manner via the main data line (see direct hard wired connections between sensors and control unit pg 6 and fig 1 Nikishin, and AAPA instant US PGPub para 5).
In Re 17, Nikishin further teaches the at least two control units have a signal-conducting connection to one another via an exchange data line for exchanging signals relating to wheel speeds (see the diagramed connecting data lines between 10 to 8 fig 1).
In Re 18, Nikishin further teaches the at least two control units have a signal-conducting connection to one another via an exchange data line for exchanging signals relating to wheel speeds of the at least one additional axle (see the diagramed connecting data lines between 10 to 8 fig 1).
In Re 19, the method of claim 19 rejected over in re 1 as taught by Nikishin as described above.
In Re 21, the vehicle (1,2 fig 1) of claim 21 rejected over in re 1 as taught by Nikishin as described above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikishin DE 112016005158T5 (see IDS and attached machine translation) in view of Schmidt et al DE 102019106243 (see IDS for DE document published 9/17/2020, citations to US 2022/0185251 taken as literal translation).
In Re 2,20, Nikishin teaches the at least two control units are formed by a primary control unit (10) and a secondary control unit (8); the primary control unit is configured to generate and output primary brake control signals during normal operation of the brake system (all operation is disclosed as normal), the wheel brakes of the brake system are configured to be controlled on a basis of the primary brake control signals during normal operation.
Nikishin does not teach however Schmidt teaches the secondary control unit is configured to generate and output secondary brake control signals during backup operation of the brake system in which the primary control unit has failed (paras 48-54 redundant); and, and on a basis of the secondary brake control signals during backup operation (inherent). Schmidt further teaches in the event of a failure of primary control system ability to operate with redundant system (para 53). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to modify Nikishin’s control with Schmidt’s redundant control to operate brakes during failure.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikishin DE 112016005158T5 (see IDS and attached machine translation) in view Subramanian US 12,030,477.
In Re 3, Nikishin teaches the at least two control units (8,10).
Nikishin does not teach however Subramanian teaches at least two additional axles (fig 2 axles of 120,140,160, top of col 7 and bottom of col 9, note six axles) are provided in the brake system; and, the wheel speed sensors (210) on the at least two additional axles (each tire has a sensor 210 to determine wheel speed, col 5 ll 55-60 and col 6 ) are uniformly divided (all connected to vehicle primary control unit 220 col 5 ll 1-10). Subrmanian teaches redundancy of important components, including axles, col 1. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Subramanian’s extra redundant heavy duty axles to Nikishin’s system for safety.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikishin DE 112016005158T5 (see IDS and attached machine translation) in view of Tagesson US 2020/0086709.
In Re 6, Nikishin does not teach however Tagesson teaches no wheel brakes are arranged on the at least one additional axle (para 8). Tagesson further teaches brakes on additional lift axles are undesirably heavy and costly paras 1-7. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to replace and or add to Nikishin’s system an unbraked additional axle to reduce weight and cost/complexity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL C STAUBACH whose telephone number is (571)272-3748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 AM to 5:00 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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/CARL C STAUBACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747