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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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.
The phrase “the sequence valve” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 18 depends from claim 16, which recites an electrically actuable simulator valve, but does not previously recite a sequence valve. Therefore, it is unclear what structure is intended by “the sequence valve.”
For purposes of examination only, and without waiving the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the phrase “the sequence valve” in claim 18 is interpreted as referring to an electrically actuable sequence valve connecting the pressure source to the pressure port, consistent with claim 15. Claim 18 has been examined under this interpretation.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 4, 9 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, “as claimed in either claim 1” should be amended to “as claimed in claim 1.”
In claim 4, the commas following “wherein,” “separation valve,” and “sequence valve” should be deleted.
In claim 9, “as claimed in either claim 7” should be amended to “as claimed in claim 7.”
In claim 16, “connected to the pressure port by of an electrically actuable separation valve” should be amended to “connected to the pressure port by an electrically actuable separation valve.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-5 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinkel et al. (DE 102018222478 A1) (Applicant cited).
Regarding claim 1, Dinkel discloses a brake system (10) for a motor vehicle for at least two hydraulically actuable wheel brakes (B1-B4) comprising:
a first assembly (11), in which a first electrically actuable pressure source (electrically operated pressure generator/linear actuator 40 driven by electric motor 42; see ¶ 0028) and a master brake cylinder (20), which can be actuated by means of a brake pedal (24); and
a second assembly (12), in which a second electrically actuable pressure source (50-52) and at least one electrically actuable inlet valve (E1-E4) per wheel brake are arranged, the second electrically actuable pressure source being hydraulically connected to the inlet valves (51 connected to E1/E2 and 52 connected to E3/E4; see Fig. 2).
Dinkel does not expressly disclose wherein the first assembly comprises at most one pressure port for transmitting brake pressure for actuating the wheel brakes to the second assembly, the first pressure source and the master brake cylinder being connected to the pressure port via a system pressure line.
However, Dinkel teaches that the brake system may have only one connecting line between the first assembly 11 and second assembly 12, and further teaches that reducing the number of connecting lines to only one connecting line may be achieved by dispensing with the two-circuit division in the second assembly 12. Dinkel also teaches that the first assembly 11 includes output connections AA1, AA2 connected to the second assembly 12 through connecting lines 16,17, wherein the master brake cylinder 20 is connected to output connection AA1 through valve V1, the pressure source 40 is connected to output connection AA2 through valve V3, and output connections AA1, AA2 are connected together through valve V4 (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dinkel’s first assembly 11 to include at most one pressure port/output connection for transmitting brake pressure to the second unit/wheel brakes, with both the master brake cylinder 20 and pressure source 40 connected to the pressure port through a common/system pressure line, because Dinkel expressly teaches reducing the connection between the first assembly 11 and second assembly 12 to only one connecting line, thereby reducing hydraulic connection effort, cost, installation complexity, and potential leakage/sealing points while maintaining the modular first-assembly/second-assembly brake architecture.
Regarding claim 2, Dinkel as modified discloses the brake system as claimed in claim 1, wherein all the inlet valves (E1-E4) are connected through the single input connection (EA1 or EA2) and connecting line (16 or 17) to the single pressure port (AA1 or AA2) of the first assembly (see ¶¶ 0011, 0023, 0036, 0039).
Regarding claim 3, Dinkel as modified above discloses the brake system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first assembly (11) and the second assembly (12) are interconnected by at most one pressure-resistant hydraulic connecting element (16 or 17), the pressure-resistant hydraulic connecting element being connected to the pressure port (AA1 or AA2) of the first assembly (11; see ¶ 0036).
Regarding claim 4, Dinkel discloses the brake system as claimed in claim 1, wherein, an electrically actuable separation valve (V1), connects the master brake cylinder (20) to the system pressure line (leading to output connection AA1; see ¶ 0037), an electrically actuable sequence valve (V3), connects the first pressure source (electrically operated pressure generator/linear actuator 40 driven by electric motor 42; see ¶ 0028) to the system pressure line (leading to output connection AA2; see ¶ 0037), and an electrically actuable simulator valve (V2) hydraulically connects the master brake cylinder (20) to a simulator (30) arranged in the first assembly (11).
Dinkel does not expressly disclose wherein the first assembly does not comprise another electrically actuable valve because the illustrated embodiment includes an additional valve (V4) connecting the two output connections (AA1, AA2; see ¶ 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to omit valve V4 in Dinkel’s single-pressure-port arrangement because valve V4 connects the two separate output connections (AA1, AA2) and would be unnecessary when the two output connections are consolidated into the expressly taught single hydraulic connection, thereby reducing cost, complexity, and potential leakage points.
Regarding claim 5, Dinkel discloses the brake system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first assembly (11) additionally comprises an equalization port (see Fig. 2) for connection to a pressure medium reservoir (13), which is arranged on the first assembly (11).
Dinkel does not expressly disclose that the pressure medium reservoir is under atmospheric pressure.
It would have been obvious to provide the pressure medium reservoir 13 under atmospheric pressure to permit pressure equalization, brake-fluid replenishment, and compensation for changes in fluid volume.
Regarding claim 14, Dinkel discloses an assembly (11) for a brake system comprising:
at least two hydraulically actuable wheel brakes (B1-B4), in which a first electrically actuable pressure source (electrically operated pressure generator/linear actuator 40 driven by electric motor 42; see ¶ 0028) and a master brake cylinder (20), which can be actuated by means of a brake pedal (24), are arranged.
Dinkel does not expressly disclose wherein the assembly comprises at most one pressure port for transmitting brake pressure to the wheel brakes, the first pressure source and the master brake cylinder being connected to the pressure port by means of a system pressure line.
However, Dinkel teaches that the brake system may have only one connecting line between the first assembly 11 and second assembly 12, and expressly teaches reducing the two connection lines (16, 17) to only one connecting line by eliminating the two-circuit division, see ¶ 0039. Dinkel further teaches the master brake cylinder 20 connected to output connection AA1 through valve V1, the pressure source 40 connected to output connection AA2 through valve V3, and the two output connections connected through valve V4; see Fig. 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Dinkel’s first unit 11 with the expressly taught single connecting line and corresponding single pressure port for transmitting brake pressure to the wheel brakes, with the master brake cylinder 20 and pressure source 40 connected to the pressure port by means of a common system pressure line, to reduce hydraulic connections, cost, installation complexity, and potential leakage/sealing points.
Regarding claim 15, Dinkel as modified discloses the assembly as claimed in claim 14, wherein the pressure source (40) is connected to the pressure port (AA2) by an electrically actuable sequence valve (V3; see ¶ 0037).
Regarding claim 16, Dinkel discloses the assembly as claimed in claim 14, further comprising a simulator (30) connected to the master brake cylinder (20) by an electrically actuable simulator valve (V2; see ¶ 0028), and the master brake cylinder (20) is connected to the pressure port (AA1) by of an electrically actuable separation valve (V1; see ¶ 0037).
Regarding claim 17, Dinkel discloses the assembly as claimed in claim 16, wherein besides the separation valve (V1), no further electrically actuable valve is arranged in the hydraulic connection between the master brake cylinder (20) and the pressure port (AA1; see ¶ 0037).
Regarding claim 18, Dinkel discloses the assembly as claimed in claim 16, comprising the separation valve (V1), the sequence valve (V3), and the simulator valve (V2).
Dinkel does not expressly disclose wherein besides the separation valve, the sequence valve and the simulator valve, the assembly does not comprise another electrically actuable valve.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to omit valve V4 in Dinkel’s single-pressure-port arrangement because valve V4 connects the two separate output connections (AA1, AA2) and would be unnecessary when the two output connections are consolidated into the expressly taught single hydraulic connection, thereby reducing cost, complexity, and potential leakage points.
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinkel et al. (DE 102018222478 A1) in view of Bohm et al. (US 20130080017 A1) (Applicant cited).
Regarding claim 6, Dinkel, as modified as set forth above, renders obvious the brake system as claimed in claim 1.
Dinkel does not expressly disclose wherein the pressure port is connected, by at least one expansion port of the master brake cylinder to a pressure medium reservoir under atmospheric pressure when the brake pedal is not actuated and the first assembly is de-energized.
Bohm teaches a master brake cylinder (3) having pressure spaces connected to chambers of a pressure medium reservoir (18) under atmospheric pressure, and describes the brake pedal/actuating device in its unactuated state, thereby teaching a passive reservoir-equalization condition (see ¶ 0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the master brake cylinder of Dinkel to include the expansion-port arrangement of Bohm such that, when the brake pedal is not actuated and the first assembly is de-energized, the pressure port is connected through the master brake cylinder to the atmospheric pressure medium reservoir, to permit pressure equalization, brake-fluid replenishment, and compensation for changes in fluid volume.
Regarding claim 19, Dinkel, as modified as set forth above, renders obvious the assembly as claimed in claim 14, wherein the pressure port (AA1) is connected to the master brake cylinder (20), the master brake cylinder (20) is actuated by a brake pedal (24), and the assembly (11) comprises a connection to a pressure medium reservoir (13) (see ¶¶ 0028, 0037, and Fig. 2).
Dinkel does not expressly disclose wherein the pressure port is connected to an equalization port of the assembly for connection to a pressure medium reservoir when the brake pedal is not actuated and the assembly is de-energized.
Bohm teaches a master brake cylinder (3) having pressure spaces connected to a pressure medium reservoir (18) under atmospheric pressure, when the brake pedal (9) is not actuated, corresponding to an equalization-port connection (see ¶ 0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Dinkel to include the equalization-port arrangement of Bohm, such that the pressure port AA1 is connected through the master brake cylinder 20 to the pressure medium reservoir 13 when the brake pedal 24 is not actuated and the assembly 11 is de-energized, to permit passive pressure equalization, fluid replenishment, and compensation for changes in brake-fluid volume.
Claims 7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinkel et al. (DE 102018222478 A1) in view of Zimmermann et al. (US 20190344769 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Dinkel, as modified as set forth above, renders obvious the brake system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the second assembly (12) comprises a hydraulic wheel connection for connection to each wheel brake (B1-B4; see Fig. 2), an only one pressure port (EA2) for connection to the first assembly (11), the pressure port (EA2) of the second assembly (12) being connected to the pressure port (AA2) of the first assembly (11) by connecting line (17; see ¶0036)
Dinkel does not expressly disclose wherein the second assembly comprises an equalization port for connection to a pressure medium reservoir, which is arranged in particular on the first assembly.
Zimmermann teaches a hydraulic equalization connection (return line 14) connecting the outlet valves (7a-7d) of the wheel-pressure modulation assembly to a pressure medium reservoir (4) under atmospheric pressure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second assembly of Dinkel to include Zimmermann’s equalization connection 14 to the pressure medium reservoir 13 arranged on the first assembly 11, because the dedicated equalization connection would provide a low-pressure return and replenishment path for fluid discharged during wheel-pressure modulation while preserving the single pressure port for transmitting brake pressure.
Regarding claim 9, Dinkel in view of Zimmermann, as modified above, renders obvious the brake system as claimed in either claim 7, and Dinkel further discloses a brake supply line in the second assembly (12) connects the at least two inlet valves (E3, E4) to the pressure port (EA2) of the second assembly (12) and the second pressure source (52, see Fig. 2 and ¶¶ 0034, 0038).
Regarding claim 10, Dinkel in view of Zimmermann, as modified above, renders obvious the brake system as claimed in claim 9.
Dinkel does not expressly disclose wherein the pressure port of the first assembly is connected to the brake supply line by an electrically actuable second separation valve which is arranged in the second assembly.
Zimmermann teaches an electrically actuable separation valve 26 connecting an upstream system pressure line 38 and pressure source 5 to a brake supply line 13, whereby the hydraulic connection to the brake supply line 13 can be selectively opened and closed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange Zimmermann’s separation valve 26 in Dinkel’s second assembly 12 between the pressure port EA2 and the brake supply line, thereby connecting the pressure port AA2 of the first assembly 11 to the brake supply line through the separation valve 26 to selectively isolate the first assembly from the wheel-brake circuit during pressure control or a fault.
Regarding claim 11, Dinkel in view of Zimmermann, as modified above, renders obvious the brake system as claimed in claim 9.
Zimmermann further teaches an electrically actuable circuit separation valve (40) in the second assembly is arranged in the brake supply line (13) such that, when the circuit separation valve (40) is closed, the brake supply line (13) is hydraulically separated into a first line portion (13a) and a second line portion (13b), the first line portion being hydraulically connected to the second pressure source (2) and to at least one of the at least two inlet valves (6a, 6b), and the second line portion being hydraulically connected to the other inlet valves (6c, 6d) and to the first pressure source (5) through the first separation valve (26).
In the modified Dinkel system, the second line portion (13b) is connected through the pressure ports (AA2, EA2) to the first pressure source (40) of the first assembly (11).
Regarding claim 12, Dinkel in view of Zimmermann, as modified above, renders obvious the brake system as claimed in claim 9.
Zimmermann further discloses a pressure sensor (49) associated with the second pressure source (2) and the corresponding brake circuit/line portion (13a) for determining hydraulic pressure in the brake supply line (13), the pressure sensor (49) being arranged close to the second pressure source (2) for operation and self-diagnosis.
It would have been obvious to arrange the pressure sensor 49 in Dinkel’s second assembly 12 because the second pressure source and brake supply line are arranged in the second assembly and locating the sensor near the pressure source permits direct pressure monitoring and self-diagnosis.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinkel et al. (DE 102018222478 A1) in view of Zimmermann et al. (US 20190344769 A1), and further in view of Feigel et al. (US 20160264113 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Dinkel in view of Zimmermann, as modified above, discloses the brake system as claimed in claim 7, including an equalization connection of the first assembly (11) to the pressure medium reservoir (13) and an equalization connection of the second assembly (12) to the pressure medium reservoir (13).
Dinkel does not expressly disclose wherein the equalization port of the first assembly and the equalization port of the second assembly are connected to different chambers of the pressure medium reservoir.
Feigel teaches multiple pressure-equalization lines (41a, 41b, 41c) connected to a pressure medium reservoir (4), including a third pressure-equalization line (41c) connected to a third chamber of the pressure medium reservoir (4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the equalization port of the first assembly 11 and the equalization port of the second assembly 12 to different chambers of the pressure medium reservoir 13, as taught by Feigel’s separate pressure-equalization lines and reservoir chambers, to maintain hydraulic separation between the fluid paths and improve fault isolation.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 and 7-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-25 of copending Application No. 18/720,130 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claims recite the same two-unit brake system having a first and second electrically actuable pressure sources, wheel-specific inlet and outlet valves, a brake supply line, at most one pressure-resistant hydraulic connecting element between the units, hydraulic connections, and isolation valves. Providing the first unit with the claimed pedal-actuated master brake cylinder would have been an obvious variation to provide driver-generated hydraulic fallback pressure.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 12 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 18-25 and 32-33 of copending Application No. 18/720,231 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claims recite the same two-device brake system having two electrically actuable pressure sources, wheel-specific inlet and outlet valves, a brake supply line, reservoir and pressure-source ports, a pressure sensor, separation valves, and at most one pressure-resistant hydraulic connecting element. Providing the other device with the claimed pedal-actuated master brake cylinder would have been an obvious variation to provide driver-generated hydraulic fallback pressure.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Karem Akram Algarash whose telephone number is (571)272-5789. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-5pm.
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.
/K.A.A./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights