DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1-13 remain pending.
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 .
Response to Amendments
The Examiner accepts the amendments received on 03/30/2026.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner has considered the Applicant’s submitted Remarks, filed on 03/30/2026. The Examiner below proceeds with a bona fide attempt to respond properly to each argument raised by the Applicant.
To begin, Applicant argues that “Xie does not disclose controlling the affected actuator directly by the control device depending on an operating state of another actuator.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Xie teaches control devices that acquire and/or evaluate sensor data from sensors assigned to the wheel brake devices and/or vehicle. Each control device is assigned to actuate a primary electric motor of one wheel brake device and a secondary electric motor of another wheel brake device (Xie, Paragraphs 0006 and 0020). Moreover, Xie teaches monitoring the electric motors and control devices for functionality and triggering a replacement response upon failure of one of the electric motors or control devices, thereby maintaining the braking effect of the brake system (Xie, Paragraph 0012). Xie also teaches that, in the event of failure of a primary electric motor, the secondary electric motor assigned to the same wheel brake device is actuated, and that a control device/electric motor may be actuated to compensate for failure of another control device/electric motor (Xie, Paragraphs 0013, 0015, and 0021). Thus, Xie teaches or at least suggests controlling an actuator based on the monitored operating/failure state of another actuator or control path.
Applicant further argues that the cited portions of Xie “describe the output of a warning message as a replacement response.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s characterization is incomplete. Xie does not disclose only a warning message. Xie expressly teaches that the warning message may be output simultaneously with replacement responses in which one control device and/or electric motor is actuated to compensate for failure of another control device and/or electric motor (Xie, Paragraph 0015). Xie also separately teaches actuating the secondary electric motor when the primary electric motor fails and actuating another control device when one control device fails (Xie, Paragraphs 0013 and 0014). Accordingly, Xie teaches active replacement control, not merely warning output.
Applicant further argues that Xie only teaches “activating a pre-assigned backup component at the same wheel brake device” and does not disclose a local control device that independently monitors another actuator. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 does not require the specific “independent” or “without data exchange with the central control device” language relied upon by Applicant. Rather, claim 1 requires controlling the affected actuator directly by the assigned control device depending on an operating state of another actuator detected by monitoring. Xie teaches direct acquisition/evaluation of relevant sensor data by the control devices for actuating the electric motors, and also teaches that each control device is assigned to actuate motors associated with different wheel brake devices (Xie, Paragraphs 0006, 0007, and 0020). Xie further teaches that when a failure is detected, a replacement response is triggered so that braking remains available (Xie, Paragraph 0012). Thus, Applicant’s argument improperly reads additional limitations from the specification into the claim.
Applicant argues claim 4 is patentable because “a rotational speed sensor is not an acceleration sensor.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 4 recites the use of an acceleration sensor and/or acoustic sensor. Therefore, the claim is written in the alternative. Even assuming, arguendo, that a rotational speed sensor is not an acceleration sensor, Xie teaches that at least one sensor may be arranged close to the wheel as “a microphone for noise monitoring,” which corresponds to an acoustic sensor assigned to the actuator/wheel brake device (Xie, Paragraph 0007). Accordingly, Xie teaches the limitation of claim 4.
Applicant argues claim 5 is patentable because Xie does not disclose “a braking force sensor, a braking torque sensor, a contact force sensor, a driving force sensor, or a driving torque sensor.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 5 is written in the alternative and recites monitoring using a wheel speed sensor and/or other listed sensors or force/torque values. Xie teaches rotational speed sensors assigned to the wheels of the motor vehicle, where wheel speed is ascertained and taken into account during braking, including to prevent wheel lock (Xie, Paragraph 0007). Thus, Xie teaches the claimed wheel speed sensor alternative, and Applicant’s argument against force or torque sensors does not overcome the rejection.
Applicant argues claim 6 is patentable because Xie does not disclose a “fault operating mode” or switching from a normal operating mode to a fault operating mode. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Xie is not required to use the exact words “fault operating mode.” Xie teaches monitoring electric motors and control devices for functionality and triggering a replacement response when a failure of one of the electric motors or control devices is detected (Xie, Paragraph 0012). Xie further teaches actuating a secondary electric motor when a primary electric motor fails and actuating a replacement control device when one control device fails (Xie, Paragraphs 0013 and 0014). This corresponds to switching from normal operation to a fault/replacement operating mode.
Applicant further argues claim 6 is patentable because Xie does not disclose monitoring sensor signals to recognize whether another actuator is being controlled. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Xie teaches that the control devices acquire and/or evaluate sensor data from sensors assigned to the wheel brake devices and/or vehicle, and that the sensor data is directly acquired/evaluated by the control devices for actuating the electric motors (Xie, Paragraphs 0006 and 0007). Xie also teaches monitoring functionality of the electric motors/control devices and triggering a replacement response upon failure (Xie, Paragraph 0012). Thus, Xie teaches monitoring sensor signals associated with actuator operation and using that information to determine and carry out replacement actuation.
Applicant argues claim 8 is patentable because the Office Action relies on a “bare assertion” regarding a watchdog timer interrupt. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 8 recites that “the control of the affected actuator is interrupted after a specified period of time.” A watchdog/timer-based interrupt is a known technique for generating an interrupt after a timeout period in the art and one of ordinary skill. For example, the NXP MCUXpresso SDK API Reference Manual explains that a watchdog timeout may generate an interrupt before reset. See NXP MCUXpresso SDK API Reference Manual, WDOG: Watchdog Timer Driver, https://mcuxpresso.nxp.com/api_doc/dev/1523/a00084.html.
Claim 8 further recites making a decision, after the interruption, “depending on sensor signals ascertained after the interruption” and “comparing sensor signals prior to a start of and after the interruption of the control.” Xie already teaches control devices that acquire and/or evaluate sensor data from sensors assigned to the wheel brake devices and/or vehicle, and further teaches monitoring the electric motors and control devices for functionality and triggering a replacement response when a failure is detected (Xie, Paragraphs 0006, 0007, and 0012). Accordingly, in Xie’s fault-response system, the sensor signals before interruption would indicate the actuator operating state that led to replacement control, while the sensor signals after interruption would indicate whether continued replacement control remains necessary.
Applicant further argues that watchdog sensor-fault detection is “categorically different” from claim 8’s interruption and comparison process. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection does not rely on a watchdog timer merely to detect a faulty sensor. Rather, the watchdog/timer interrupt provides the known timing mechanism for interrupting control after a specified period of time. Xie supplies the sensor-based actuator monitoring and replacement-control environment (Xie, Paragraphs 0006, 0007, and 0012). Combining these teachings results in interrupting replacement control after a specified period, obtaining sensor signals after the interruption, comparing those signals with sensor signals before the interruption, and deciding whether and how continued control of the affected actuator should proceed, as recited in claim 8.
Applicant argues that dependent claims 2-11 are patentable by virtue of depending from claim 1, and that independent claims 12 and 13 are patentable for the same reasons as claim 1. The Examiner respectfully disagrees for at least the reasons set forth above. The combination of Xie and Poisson teaches or suggests the limitations of independent claim 1, and Applicant has not presented separate persuasive arguments for independent claims 12 and 13 beyond those addressed above. Accordingly, claims 2-13 remain unpatentable over the cited combination.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie U.S. P.G. Publication 2024/0140386A1 (hereinafter, Xie), in view of Poisson et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2018/0287861A1 (hereinafter, Poisson).
Regarding Claim 1, Xie describes a method for operating an actuator arrangement for a motor vehicle (method for operating actuators of a vehicle system, Xie, Paragraph 0020 and Figure 1), wherein the actuator arrangement includes at least two controllable actuators and a control system with at least two control devices each assigned to one of the actuators (a plurality of actuators wherein each actuator is assigned two control devices, Xie, Paragraphs 0020-0021 and Figure 1), and
…, the method comprising:
-monitoring the control system for an occurrence of a malfunction (monitoring the control system for an occurrence of a malfunction (i.e., monitoring functionality), Xie, Paragraph 0012);
-monitoring an operating state of the actuators (monitoring the operating state of the actuators (i.e., monitoring functionality), Xie, Paragraph 0012); and based on recognizing a malfunction of the control system affecting one of the actuators, controlling the affected actuator directly by the control device assigned to the affected actuator depending on an operating state of another actuator detected by the monitoring (vehicle is capable of recognizing a malfunction of a control system affecting one of the actuators and based operating state of another actuator, controlling the affected actuator (e.g., if other braking actuator system is ok, then simply using the other control device, should it be the control device that is faulty), Xie, Paragraph 0015 and Figure 1).
Xie does not specifically disclose the method to include a central control device connected to the control devices using communication technology by communication links, and wherein the control devices are controlled in a fault-free normal operating mode of the actuator arrangement by the central control device for controlling the actuators.
Poisson discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Poisson describes a vehicle system that includes a central control device (i.e., master CPU) connected to the control devices (i.e., actuator CPU) using communication links (Poisson, Paragraph 0011 and Figures 1 and 2). Moreover, Poisson describes the devices capable of operating in fault-free normal operating mode for controlling the actuators (Poisson, Paragraphs 0018 and 0011 and Figures 1 and 2).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Xie to include a central control device connected to the control devices using communication technology by communication links, and wherein the control devices are controlled in a fault-free normal operating mode of the actuator arrangement by the central control device for controlling the actuators, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Poisson.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because having a central control device in communication with the control devices of the actuators (i.e., slave devices) allows for communication to be passed to and from the devices along and monitoring for faults (Poisson, Paragraphs 0002 and 018).
Regarding Claim 2, Xie, as modified, describes the method according to claim 1, wherein each respective actuator of the actuators is assigned to an actuatable apparatus for at least one wheel or one axle of the motor vehicle, the actuatable apparatus including wheel braking apparatus and/or drive apparatus and/or steering apparatus, the actuatable apparatus being is actuated by the control device upon control of the respective actuator (each actuator assigned to an actuatable apparatus (e.g., wheel brake), Xie, Paragraph 0018 and Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Xie, as modified, describes the method according to claim 1, wherein the actuators are electromechanical actuators and each includes an electric machine, and the operating state of the each of the actuators is monitored using a current sensor and/or rotor position sensor assigned to the electric machine of the actuator (actuator are electromechanical (i.e., power source and mechanical) and use sensors such as rotor position sensors, Xie, Paragraphs 0007 and Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 4, Xie, as modified, describes the method according to claim 1 wherein the operating state of each of the actuators is monitored by using an acceleration sensor and/or acoustic sensor assigned to the actuator (speed sensors over time are acceleration sensors, Xie, Paragraph 0007).
Regarding Claim 5, Xie, as modified, describes the method according to claim 1, wherein: the operating state of each of the actuators is monitored using a wheel speed sensor (wheel speed sensor, Xie, Paragraph 0007) and/or steering angle sensor and/or position sensor of a toothed rack of a steering gear and/or contact force sensor assigned to a wheel of the motor vehicle assigned to the actuator, and/or the operating state of each of the actuators is monitored depending on a driving force and/or driving torque and/or braking force (braking force sensor, Xie, Paragraph 0007) and/or braking torque acting on the wheel assigned to the actuator.
Regarding Claim 6, Xie, as modified, describes the method according to claim 1, wherein based on a malfunction being recognized, the control device assigned to the affected actuator is switched from normal operating mode to a fault operating mode (vehicle is capable of recognizing a malfunction of a control system affecting one of the actuators and able to move the mode to fault operating mode, Xie, Paragraphs 0015 and 0018 and Figure 1), and sensor signals from sensors assigned to the actuators are monitored in the fault operating mode, in order to recognize, depending on the sensor signals, whether at least one other of the actuators of the actuator arrangement is being controlled (sensors able to determine whether an actuator is faulty, Xie, Paragraph 0007 and 0025 and Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 7, Xie, as modified, describes the method according to claim 6, wherein based on a control of at least one other actuator being recognized, the affected actuator is controlled by the control device assigned to the affected actuator, to support the other actuator (vehicle is capable of recognizing a malfunction of a control system affecting one of the actuators and based operating state of another actuator, controlling the affected actuator (e.g., if other braking actuator system is ok, then simply using the other control device, should it be the control device that is faulty), Xie, Paragraph 0015 and Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 8, Xie, as modified, describes the method according to claim 7, wherein the control of the affected actuator is interrupted after a specified period of time, and a decision is made depending on sensor signals ascertained after the interruption as to whether and how the control is continued, by comparing sensor signals prior to a start of and after the interruption of the control (known is the art is the use of a watchdog timer interrupt which will interrupt control of an actuator after a specific period of time, from which sensor signals can be compared before and after the interruption to determine malfunction of the sensor).
Regarding Claim 9, Xie, as modified, describes the method according to claim 7, wherein the control of the affected actuator is carried out without interruption, and a decision is made depending on continuously sensor signals ascertained as to whether and how the control is continued, by comparing sensor signals prior to a start of and during the control (vehicle is capable of recognizing a malfunction of a control system affecting one of the actuators, thus comparing sensor signals can occur to determine if a malfunction is present, Xie, Paragraphs 0015 and 0018 and Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 10, Xie, as modified, describes the method according to claim 6, wherein based on the malfunction being recognized, and based on a control of at least one other actuator being recognized, the other actuator is controlled more strongly, at least for a specified period of time (vehicle is capable of recognizing a malfunction of an actuator and based operating state, controlling the affected actuator (e.g., if other braking actuator system is ok, then simply using the other actuator, wherein the other actuator that is working is more strongly used), Xie, Paragraph 0015 and Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Xie, as modified, describes the method according to claim 6, wherein a fault message is output on a display apparatus in the fault operating mode (message to display fault, Xie, Paragraph 0015).
Regarding Claim 12, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 13, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
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 ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights