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 .
Status of Claims
The amendment of 05/04/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-7, 11, 13-17, and 21-26 are currently pending in the application. Claims 21-26 are withdrawn for being drawn to a nonelected invention. Claims 2, 8-10, 12, and 18-20 are canceled.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 05/04/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 6, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 3 line 3 “processor” should be omitted.
At claim 6 lines 2-3 “the parking brake is controlled based on the output signal of the pedal sensor” should read --the second processor controls the parking brake based on the output signal of the pedal sensor--.
At claim 16 line 2 “the parking brake is controlled based on the output signal of the pedal sensor” should read --the parking brake is controlled, by the second processor, based on the output signal of the pedal sensor--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TARANDEK (WO 2020/204509, English language equivalent in US 12,472,918) in view of ALFORD (US 2021/0179051, provided by Applicant on 07/26/2024 IDS) and ZHANG (US 2024/0359669).
Regarding claim 1, TARANDEK discloses a brake device comprising:
a hydraulic pressure supply unit (15, Fig. 3) fluidly connected to wheel cylinders (FA,RA) of a vehicle (col. 5 lines 52-53, Fig. 3);
a parking brake (1, col. 4 lines 7-9) provided on at least one of the wheel cylinders (Fig. 3);
a first processor (2) electrically connected to the hydraulic pressure supply unit and the parking brake (col. 4 lines 12-15); and
a second processor (3) electrically connected to the parking brake (col. 4 lines 15-19, Fig. 3) and electrically connected to the first processor through a signal line (implied by “communication interface” connecting microprocessors in Fig. 2, Fig. 3),
wherein the first processor (implied) controls the hydraulic pressure supply unit based on an output signal of a pedal sensor (12) of the vehicle (col. 5 lines 65-67), and controls the parking brake based on an output signal of a parking switch (10) of the vehicle (col. 6 lines 3-7), and
when the first processor malfunctions (if the first ECU fails, col. 6 lines 8-9) and the output signal of the parking switch is received (implied, parking brake operated by switch 10, col. 6 lines 3-5), the second processor (3) controls the parking brake (implied, col. 4 lines 15-19col. 6 lines 3-9) based on the output signal of the parking switch (implied, col. 6 lines 3-9).
TARANDEK is not relied upon to teach the second processor controls the parking brake based on the output signal of the pedal sensor when the first processor malfunctions.
ALFORD teaches when a first processor (180, Fig. 2) malfunctions (0098 lines 1-5; failure of functional unit 110 may include failure of first processor, 0089 lines 12-13) and an output signal of a pedal sensor is received (implied, on recognition of a vehicle deceleration requested by the driver at the brake pedal, 0098 lines 7-8), a second processor (180’, Fig. 2) controls a parking brake (EPB1,EPB2, Fig. 2) based on the output signal of a pedal sensor (130, 0098 lines 5-8) in order to cause, increase or reduce a vehicle deceleration or in order to increase or reduce a wheel velocity in a wheel-specific manner (0089 lines 15-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the second processor of TARANDEK to control the parking brake based on the output signal of the pedal sensor when the first processor malfunctions as taught by ALFORD in order to cause, increase or reduce a vehicle deceleration or in order to increase or reduce a wheel velocity in a wheel-specific manner and potentially prevent an accident.
TARANDEK and ALFORD are silent regarding how the second processor determines malfunction of the first processor.
ZHANG teaches a first processor (121) provides a periodic signal (0141 lines 5-7) to a second processor (123) through a signal line (0141 lines 1-5), and
when the periodic signal is not received from the first processor (0141 lines 12-13), the second processor determines malfunction of the first processor (0141 lines 13-15) so that the second processor may switch to an effective state to perform braking based on a stepping indication of a driver (0141 lines 16-18).
Absent guidance from TARANDEK and ALFORD, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the brake device of TARANDEK such that the second processor may determine malfunction of the first processor as taught by ZHANG so that the second processor may switch to an effective state to perform braking based on a stepping indication of a driver and potentially prevent an accident.
TARANDEK as modified teaches wherein the first processor provides a periodic signal to the second processor through the signal line,
when the periodic signal is not received from the first processor and the output signal of the pedal sensor is received, the second processor controls the parking brake based on the output signal of the pedal sensor,
when the periodic signal is not received from the first processor and the output signal of the parking switch is received, the second processor controls the parking brake based on the output signal of the parking switch.
Regarding claim 3, TARANDEK as modified teaches the brake device of claim 1.
ZHANG is relied upon to teach when the periodic signal is not received from the first processor (0141 lines 12-13), the second processor determines malfunction of the first processor (0141 lines 13-15).
ALFORD is relied upon to teach when a first processor (180, Fig. 2) malfunctions (0098 lines 1-5; failure of functional unit 110 may include failure of first processor, 0089 lines 12-13), the second processor (180’, Fig. 2) controls a parking brake (EPB1,EPB2, Fig. 2) based on the output signal of a pedal sensor (130, 0098 lines 5-8).
None of the references explicitly disclose identifying whether the output signal of the pedal sensor is valid.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the validity of the output signal of the pedal sensor in the brake device of TARANDEK as modified to prevent inappropriate and/or potentially unsafe control of the brakes based on a faulty sensor signal. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality in determining the validity of the output signal of the pedal sensor.
TARANDEK as modified teaches wherein the second processor identifies whether the output signal of the pedal sensor is valid, and controls the parking brake based on the output signal of the pedal sensor when the periodic signal is not received from the first processor and the output signal of the pedal sensor is valid.
Regarding claim 4, TARANDEK as modified teaches the brake device of claim 1.
TARANDEK further discloses wherein the first processor (col. 5 line 50) controls the hydraulic pressure supply unit based on an output signal of a wheel speed sensor of the vehicle (col. 5 line 65 - col. 6 line 3).
ZHANG is relied upon to teach when the periodic signal is not received from the first processor (0141 lines 12-13), the second processor determines malfunction of the first processor (0141 lines 13-15).
ALFORD further teaches when the first processor malfunctions (0090 lines 1-5), the second processor controls the parking brake based on the output signal of the wheel speed sensor (0092 lines 4-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the second processor of TARANDEK to control the parking brake based on the wheel speed sensors when the first processor malfunctions as taught by ALFORD to provide slip control during braking events even when the first processor malfunctions to potentially prevent an accident.
TARANDEK as modified teaches when the periodic signal is not received from the first processor, the second processor controls the parking brake based on the output signal of the wheel speed sensor.
Regarding claim 5, TARANDEK as modified teaches the brake system of claim 4.
ZHANG is relied upon to teach when the periodic signal is not received from the first processor (0141 lines 12-13), the second processor determines malfunction of the first processor (0141 lines 13-15).
ALFORD is relied upon to teach when a first processor (180, Fig. 2) malfunctions (0098 lines 1-5; failure of functional unit 110 may include failure of first processor, 0089 lines 12-13), the second processor (180’, Fig. 2) controls the parking brake (EPB1,EPB2, Fig. 2) based on the output signal of a pedal sensor (130, 0098 lines 5-8) and the wheel speed sensor (0092 lines 4 6).
None of the references explicitly disclose identifying whether the output signal of the wheel speed sensor is valid.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the validity of the output signal of the wheel speed sensor in the brake device of TARANDEK as modified to prevent inappropriate and/or potentially unsafe control of the brakes based on a faulty sensor signal. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality in determining the validity of the output signal of the wheel speed sensor.
TARANDEK as modified teaches wherein the second processor identifies whether the output signal of the wheel speed sensor is valid, and controls the parking brake based on the output signal of the pedal sensor when the periodic signal is not received from the first processor and the output signal of the wheel speed signal is valid.
Regarding claim 11, TARANDEK discloses a method of controlling a brake device including a first processor (2) and a second processor (3) electrically connected to the first processor through a signal line (implied by “communication interface” connecting microprocessors in Fig. 2, Fig. 3), the method comprising:
controlling, by the first processor (implied), a hydraulic pressure supply unit (15, Fig. 3) fluidly connected to wheel cylinders (FA,RA) of a vehicle (col. 5 lines 52-53, Fig. 3) based on an output signal of a pedal sensor (12) of the vehicle (col. 5 lines 65-67); and
controlling, by the first processor (implied), a parking brake (1, col. 4 lines 7-9) provided on at least one of the wheel cylinders (Fig. 3) based on an output signal of a parking switch (10) of the vehicle (col. 6 lines 3-7),
when first processor malfunctions (if the first ECU fails, col. 6 lines 8-9) and the output signal of the parking switch is received (implied, parking brake operated by switch 10, col. 6 lines 3-5), controlling, by the second processor (3), the parking brake (implied, col. 4 lines 15-19, col. 6 lines 3-9) based on the output signal of the parking switch (implied, col. 6 lines 3-9).
TARANDEK is not relied upon to teach when the first processor malfunctions, controlling, by the second processor, the parking brake based on the output signal of the pedal sensor.
ALFORD teaches when a first processor (180, Fig. 2) malfunctions (0098 lines 1-5; failure of functional unit 110 may include failure of first processor, 0089 lines 12-13) and the output signal of the pedal sensor is received (implied, on recognition of a vehicle deceleration requested by the driver at the brake pedal, 0098 lines 7-8), controlling, by the second processor (180’, Fig. 2), the parking brake (EPB1,EPB2, Fig. 2) based on the output signal of a pedal sensor (130, 0098 lines 5-8) in order to cause, increase or reduce a vehicle deceleration or in order to increase or reduce a wheel velocity in a wheel-specific manner (0089 lines 15-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the second processor of TARANDEK to control the parking brake based on the output signal of the pedal sensor when the first processor malfunctions as taught by ALFORD in order to cause, increase or reduce a vehicle deceleration or in order to increase or reduce a wheel velocity in a wheel-specific manner and potentially prevent an accident.
TARANDEK and ALFORD are silent regarding how the second processor determines malfunction of the first processor.
ZHANG teaches providing, by a first processor (121), a periodic signal (0141 lines 5-7) to a second processor (123) through a signal line (0141 lines 1-5), and
when the periodic signal is not received from the first processor (0141 lines 12-13), the second processor determines malfunction of the first processor (0141 lines 13-15) so that the second processor may switch to an effective state to perform braking based on a stepping indication of a driver (0141 lines 16-18).
Absent guidance from TARANDEK and ALFORD, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method of TARANDEK such that the second processor may determine malfunction of the first processor as taught by ZHANG so that the second processor may switch to an effective state to perform braking based on a stepping indication of a driver and potentially prevent an accident.
TARANDEK as modified teaches providing, by the first processor, a periodic signal to the second processor through the signal line,
when the periodic signal is not received from the first processor and the output signal of the pedal sensor is received, controlling, by the second processor, the parking brake based on the output signal of the pedal sensor, and
when the periodic signal is not received from the first processor and the output signal of the parking switch is received, controlling, by the second processor, the parking brake based on the output signal of the parking switch.
Regarding claim 13, TARANDEK as modified teaches the method of claim 11.
ZHANG is relied upon to teach when the periodic signal is not received from the first processor (0141 lines 12 13), the second processor determines malfunction of the first processor (0141 lines 13-15).
ALFORD is relied upon to teach when a first processor (180, Fig. 2) malfunctions (0098 lines 1-5; failure of functional unit 110 may include failure of first processor, 0089 lines 12-13), controlling, by the second processor (180’, Fig. 2), the parking brake (EPB1,EPB2, Fig. 2) based on the output signal of a pedal sensor (130, 0098 lines 5-8).
None of the references explicitly disclose identifying whether the output signal of the pedal sensor is valid.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the validity of the output signal of the pedal sensor in the brake device of TARANDEK as modified to prevent inappropriate and/or potentially unsafe control of the brakes based on a faulty sensor signal. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality in determining the validity of the output signal of the pedal sensor.
TARANDEK as modified teaches wherein the controlling, by the second processor, of the parking brake based on the output signal of the pedal sensor includes, identifying, by the second processor, whether the output signal of the pedal sensor is valid, and when the periodic signal is not received from the first processor and the output signal of the pedal sensor is valid, controlling, by the second processor, the parking brake based on the output signal of the pedal sensor.
Regarding claim 14, TARANDEK as modified teaches the method of claim 11.
TARANDEK further discloses controlling, by the first processor (col. 5 line 50), the hydraulic pressure supply unit based on an output signal of a wheel speed sensor of the vehicle (col. 5 line 65 - col. 6 line 3).
ZHANG is relied upon to teach when the periodic signal is not received from the first processor (0141 lines 12 13), the second processor determines malfunction of the first processor (0141 lines 13-15).
ALFORD further teaches when the first processor malfunctions (0090 lines 1-5), controlling, by the second processor, of the parking brake based on the output signal of the wheel speed sensor (0092 lines 4-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the second processor of TARANDEK to control the parking brake based on the wheel speed sensors when the first processor malfunctions as taught by ALFORD to provide slip control during braking events even when the first processor malfunctions to potentially prevent an accident.
TARANDEK as modified teaches when the periodic signal is not received from the first processor, controlling, by the second processor, the parking brake based on the output signal of the wheel speed sensor.
Regarding claim 15, TARANDEK as modified teaches the method of claim 14.
ZHANG is relied upon to teach when the periodic signal is not received from the first processor (0141 lines 12 13), the second processor determines malfunction of the first processor (0141 lines 13-15).
ALFORD is relied upon to teach wherein the controlling, by the second processor, of the parking brake based on the output signal of the wheel speed sensor (0092 lines 4-6) includes, when the first processor (180, Fig. 2) malfunctions (0098 lines 1-5; failure of functional unit 110 may include failure of first processor, 0089 lines 12-13), controlling, by the second processor (180’, Fig. 2), the parking brake based on the output signal of the pedal sensor (130, 0098 lines 5-8) and the wheel speed sensor (0092 lines 4 6).
None of the references explicitly disclose identifying whether the output signal of the wheel speed sensor is valid.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the validity of the output signal of the wheel speed sensor in the method of TARANDEK as modified to prevent inappropriate and/or potentially unsafe control of the brakes based on a faulty sensor signal. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality in determining the validity of the output signal of the wheel speed sensor.
TARANDEK as modified teaches wherein the controlling, by the second processor, of the parking brake based on the output signal of the wheel speed sensor includes, identifying, by the second processor, whether the output signal of the pedal sensor is valid, and when the periodic signal is not received from the first processor and the output signal of the wheel speed sensor is valid, controlling, by the second processor, the parking brake based on the output signal of the pedal sensor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 16-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
The following remarks respond to Applicant’s arguments filed 05/04/2026.
Applicant’s arguments that ALFORD fails to provide textual support for the limitation “parking switch”, see pp. 9-11, have been fully considered but are unpersuasive because TARANDEK is relied upon to explicitly disclose the limitations (col. 4 lines 15-19, col. 6 lines 3-9) in the instant rejections. In arguendo, ALFORD’s teaching of “this makes possible a conventional parking brake operation for parking the vehicle even in the event of a malfunction of the first functional unit 110” (0089 lines 24-26) is considered to strongly imply an output signal of a parking switch as claimed.
Conclusion
This Office Action is made non-final because the explicit disclose of a parking switch in TARANDEK is considered the stronger basis for rejection than that strongly implied by ALFORD.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK L. GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-7555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 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.
/MARK L. GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights