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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 23-31 and 33 are 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.
Claims 23-25 depend from canceled claim 1, rendering the claims indefinite. The claims have not been further treated on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 22, 32, and 34-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tarandek et al (US# 2022/0194339).
Tarandek et al disclose all the limitations of the instant claim including; an electrohydraulic partial brake system 100a/200a or 300; an electromechanical partial brake system 41/42; a redundant power supply B1/B2; an actuating device (50/51 and parking lever or button [0163]) configured to determine an actuating signal quantifying a brake request as a result of actuation by a vehicle driver; a brake control unit 100b/200b or 400/500 with at least two independent partitions, wherein each partition is configured to control the electromechanical partial brake system 41/42 and the electrohydraulic partial brake system 100a/200a or 300 on the basis of an actuating signal received from the actuating device. [01474][0148][0150][0151][0161][0164][[0226][0227] Figures 11-14. Note the elements of figure 13 are mislabeled and should be 300’s not 100’s. The numbering used in the specification will be referenced for elements in figure 13.
Regarding claim 32, the brake control unit comprises a control microcontroller 101/410 configured to actuate the components of the electrohydraulic partial brake system 100a/300, and wherein the first and the second partition are each configured to access the control microcontroller 101/410 (vi NT) to actuate the elements of the electrohydraulic partial brake system which are assigned to the respective partitions.
Regarding claim 34, the actuating device 50/51 comprises at least two sensor devices 51/PS1/PS2 for detecting an actuation of the actuating device, wherein a first of the sensor devices 51 is directly connected to the first partition 100b of the brake control unit, and wherein a second of the sensor devices PS2 is directly connected to the second partition 200b of the brake control unit. Figure 11.
Regarding claim 35, the brake control unit is configured as part of the electrohydraulic partial brake system. Figure 12.
Regarding claim 36, the first and the second partition of the brake control unit are each connected via a data bus NT to the electromechanical partial brake system. [0109], Figure 11.
Regarding claim 37, the first and the second partition of the brake control unit are each connected via a communication interface NT to further control units (unit which generates parking command and sends via the vehicle communication network NT [0111]; or [0211][0223]) of the motor vehicle.
Regarding claim 38, the first partition and the second partition of the brake control unit are connected to each other via a data connection NT.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 39 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarandek et al (US# 2022/0194339) in view of Feigel et al (US#12109991).
Regarding claim 39, Tarandek et al disclose the system comprises two independent power sources B1/B2, wherein a first B1 of the power sources supplies the first partition of the brake control unit with power, and a second B2 of the power sources supplies the second partition of the brake control unit with power. Tarandek further disclose and a first 41 of the electromechanical wheel brakes being controlled by the first partition and a second 42 of the electromechanical wheel brakes being controlled by the second partition, but lack the explicit disclosure of the first power source supplying the first electromechanical wheel brake with power, and the second power source supplying the second electromechanical wheel brake with power. Feigel et al disclose a similar brake system and further teach a first power source P1 supplying the first electromechanical wheel brake IPB with power, and a second power source P2 supplying the second electromechanical wheel brake IPB with power. Note figure 3, the disclosure and claims. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first power source supplying the first electromechanical wheel brake with power, and the second power source supplying the second electromechanical wheel brake with power, in Tarandek et al, as taught by Feigel et al, to provide a further degree of safety in the parking brake by allowing operation even with failure of one of the power supplies.
Claims 40-41 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarandek et al (US# 2022/0194339) in view of Feigel et al (US#2016/0009263) and Feigel et al (US#12109991).
Regarding claim 40, Tarandek discloses two independent power sources B1/B2 and a second control unit 340 or 500, wherein a first of the power sources supplies the first partition of the brake control unit with power, and a second of the power sources supplies the second control unit with power, wherein the second control unit is connected to the brake actuating unit and to the electromechanical and the electrohydraulic brake system for data transmission. Tarandek further disclose and the electromechanical wheel brakes 41/42 being controlled by the second partition supplied by the second source B2, but lack the explicit disclosure of the second power source supplying the electromechanical wheel brakes with power. Feigel et al ‘ 991 disclose a similar brake system and further teach a second power source P2 supplying the electromechanical wheel brakes IPB with power. Note figure 3, the disclosure and claims. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second power source supplying the electromechanical wheel brakes with power in Tarandek et al, as taught by Feigel et al, to provide a further degree of safety in the parking brake by allowing operation even with failure of one of the power supplies. Tarandek et al further lack the disclosure of the first of the power sources supplying the first and second partition of the brake control unit with power. Fiegel ‘263 disclose a similar brake system with redundant power supply 215/216 supplying first and second partitions 201/301 through a switch device 217. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a switch device such that both power supplies of Tarandek et al can supply both partitions, as taught by Feigel ‘263, to improve redundancy and allow the partitions to function normally in the case of a single power supply failure.
Regarding claim 41, as modified, the second B2 of the power sources is additionally configured to supply the first and second partition of the brake control unit with power, wherein a switching device is provided and configured to switch over the power supply of the first and second partition of the brake control unit between the first and second of the power sources.
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 BRADLEY T KING whose telephone number is (571)272-7117. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-5:00 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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571 272-7124. 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.
/BRADLEY T KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
BTK
Prosecution Insights