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 § 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.
Claims 11, 13, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobayashi et al. (US 20200039490 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Kobayashi discloses a method for distributing braking load (brake ECU 6 distributes the required hydraulic braking force between booster mechanism 15 and actuator 5) (see ¶¶ 0082, 0085-86), the method comprising the following steps:
building up an initial first braking pressure (master pressure corresponding to the first target wheel pressure) to set a braking power (required total braking force of the vehicle) using a first braking apparatus (booster mechanism 15) (see ¶¶ 0079, 0085, and 0090-91; Fig. 5); and
building up a second braking pressure (pressure increase generated by actuator 5) by activating a second braking apparatus (actuator 5) when a predetermined condition occurs (Tb1, which may be selected when the required braking force has remained constant for a predetermined period), and
simultaneously with the building up of the second braking pressure (the second ratio and second target wheel pressure increase from Tb1), reducing the first braking pressure (the first ratio and corresponding target master pressure decrease) such that the braking power remains substantially unchanged (the required total braking force remains constant while the first and second pressure shares are shifted) (see ¶¶ 0082, 0084-86, and 0090-91; Fig. 5).
In Fig. 5, the total braking force remains constant during the transition beginning at Tb1, although the hydraulic and regenerative braking contributions change.
Regarding claim 13, Kobayashi further discloses the method according to claim 11. As to the relied upon first alternative, Kobayashi discloses wherein the predetermined condition includes a predetermined time elapsing after the initial first braking pressure has been built up (Tb1 may be selected when the required braking force has remained constant for a predetermined period after the initial first-pressure buildup) (see ¶ 0091).
Regarding claim 15, Kobayashi discloses a braking device (vehicular brake device 100 including hydraulic brake device 100A), comprising (see ¶¶ 0019, 0074; Fig. 1):
a first braking apparatus (booster mechanism 15) configured to build up an initial first braking pressure (master pressure) to set a braking power (required total braking force of the vehicle) (see ¶¶ 0079, 0085, 0090-91; Fig. 5); and
a second braking apparatus (actuator 5) configured to build up a second braking pressure (pressure increase generated by actuator 5) (see ¶ 0072);
wherein the first braking apparatus is further configured to, when the second braking apparatus is activated (actuator 5 begins increasing the second target wheel pressure at Tb1), reduce the first braking pressure (the first ratio and corresponding target master pressure decrease) such that the braking power remains substantially unchanged (the required total braking force remains constant while the first and second pressure shares are shifted) (see ¶¶ 0082, 0084-86, and 0090-91; Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 17, Kobayashi discloses the braking device according to claim 15. As to the relied-upon first alternative, Kobayashi discloses wherein a predetermined condition for reducing the first braking pressure and building up the second braking pressure includes a predetermined time elapsing after the initial first braking pressure has been built up (Tb1 may be selected when the required braking force has remained constant for a predetermined period after the initial first pressure buildup) (see ¶ 0091).
Regarding claim 18, Kobayashi discloses the braking device according to claim 15, further comprising: a controller (brake ECU 6) configured to control a function of the first braking apparatus (booster mechanism 15) and the second braking apparatus (see ¶ 0075).
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.
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 12, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (US 20200039490 A1) in view of Mayer (US 20150019100 A1).
Regarding claim 12 and 16, Kobayashi discloses the method according to claim 11 and the braking device according to claim 15, respectively, and further discloses wherein the first braking apparatus and the second braking apparatus include a combination of at least one brake booster (booster mechanism 15).
However, Kobayashi does not expressly disclose an electronic stability program.
Mayer teaches an electronic stability program (ESP brake system including pump 22 and control device 48 implemented as an ESP control unit) (see ¶¶ 0023 and 0029).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Kobayashi’s actuator 5 and brake ECU 6 as the ESP pump and control unit taught by Mayer, while retaining Kobayashi's booster mechanism 15, in order to perform the actuator pressure buildup using an existing, cost effective ESP pump without installing an additional costly component, thereby obtaining the second braking pressure using the vehicle's ESP hardware (see Mayer ¶ 0023).
Regarding claim 19, Kobayashi discloses the braking device according to claim 18.
However, Kobayashi does not expressly disclose wherein the controller is a component of the first braking apparatus or of the second braking apparatus.
Mayer teaches the relied-upon first alternative, wherein the controller (control device 48) is a component of the first braking apparatus (brake-force booster 24) (see ¶ 0029).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Kobayashi’s brake ECU 6 as a brake-force booster control electronics subunit of booster mechanism 15, as taught by Mayer, in order to consolidate the booster and its control circuitry into one assembly, thereby reducing the need for separate controller packaging and mounting.
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (US 20200039490 A1) in view of Kinder et al. (US 20030214185 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Kobayashi discloses the method according to claim 11.
However, Kobayashi does not expressly disclose wherein the method is carried out only under certain conditions including at a standstill or when an engine is running.
Kinder teaches the relied-upon standstill alternative, wherein the method is carried out only under certain conditions including at a standstill (brake-equipment control initiated only after vehicle standstill is established) (see ¶ 0007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Kobayashi's method to initiate the first braking pressure buildup only after vehicle standstill is established and then perform the coordinated pressure transfer while the vehicle remains at standstill, applying Kinder's standstill dependent activation, in order to shift pressure generating load away from booster mechanism 15 when it is hotter than actuator 5, thereby reducing the load on the hotter booster while maintaining the required holding force (see Kobayashi ¶ 0102; Kinder ¶ 0042).
Regarding claim 20, Kobayashi discloses the braking device according to claim 18.
However, Kobayashi does not expressly disclose wherein the controller is configured to control the first braking apparatus and the second braking apparatus only under certain conditions, including at a standstill or when an engine is running.
Kinder teaches the relied-upon standstill alternative, wherein the controller (control unit 2) is configured to control the first braking apparatus (service braking device 10) and the second braking apparatus (holding brake mechanism 6) only under certain conditions, including at a standstill (control initiated after vehicle standstill is established) (see ¶¶ 0040, 0042, and 0044-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Kobayashi’s brake ECU 6 to initiate the first braking pressure buildup only after vehicle standstill is established and then control the coordinated pressure transfer while the vehicle remains at standstill, applying Kinder's standstill dependent activation, in order to shift pressure generating load away from booster mechanism 15 when it is hotter than actuator 5, thereby reducing the load on the hotter booster while maintaining the required holding force (see Kobayashi ¶ 0102; Kinder ¶ 0042).
For claims 14 and 20, Kobayashi teaches stopping actuator 5 at standstill to improve quietness (¶ 0110). Kobayashi also teaches reducing the pressure share of the hotter braking apparatus to reduce its load and improve durability (¶ 0102), and permits temperature and standstill determinations to be combined and weighted (¶ 0116). Kobayashi further permits brake operation start and cancellation conditions based only on stroke information and/or reaction force hydraulic pressure, allowing initial booster priority operation without a vehicle speed requirement (¶ 0118). A skilled artisan would have accepted pump noise during a transfer away from the hotter booster to obtain the disclosed load reduction benefit while maintaining the required stationary holding force.
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/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/DAVID R MORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights