N is 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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 13, reference numerals 30 and 32 are transposed; the ESC hydraulic unit should be identified as 32 and the brake-actuation hydraulic unit as 30. On page 13, “engine braking torque” should be corrected to “motor braking torque.” On page 18, “ESC hydraulic unit 30” should be corrected to “ESC hydraulic unit 32.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 13-23 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 13, 18, and 20 recite “based on the determining,” but no prior “determining” step is introduced. Instead, the preceding limitation recites that the control device is configured to “read out or check” whether an error state exists. It is unclear what determination triggers operation of the pump and/or electric motor. Claims 14-17, 19, and 21-23 inherit this indefiniteness.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the wheel brake cylinders" in the phrase “at least one of the wheel brake cylinders.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the at least one blocking wheel brake cylinder" in the final limitation of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Neither claim 13 nor claim 17 introduces “the wheel brake cylinders” or “the at least one blocking wheel brake cylinder.” Therefore, the scope of claim 17 is unclear.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 13 recites “or a braking system.” The term “or” appears to be a typographical error and should be corrected to “for.” 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.
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 13, 14, 16, and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leiber et al. (WO 2018233854 A1; hereinafter “Leiber”)(Applicant Cited) in view of Leiber et al. (WO 2020224814 A1; hereinafter “Leiber II”) (Applicant Cited).
For purposes of examination, the phrase “mounted on the ESC hydraulic unit” is interpreted as encompassing being connected to the ESC hydraulic unit because the specification expressly describes the brake-actuation hydraulic unit as “connected to or mounted on” the ESC hydraulic unit and the wheel brake cylinders as “connected to/mounted on” the ESC hydraulic unit (see ¶¶ 0022, 0024).
Regarding claims 13, 18, 20, and 24, Leiber discloses a vehicle braking system having a brake-actuation hydraulic unit in the form of an X-Booster and an ESC hydraulic unit in the form of an ESP/ABS unit (Leiber, pp. 7-8; Fig. 1).
The X-Booster includes a master cylinder HZ, motorized pressure supply DV, motor 8, piston 10, pedal-travel sensors 2a, 2b, pressure sensor DG, control electronics, and reservoir VB. The ESP hydraulic unit includes pump P, pump motor M, high-pressure switching valves HSV1, HSV2, inlet valves EV, outlet valves AV, and hydraulically connected wheel brake cylinders (Leiber, pp. 7-8; Fig. 1).
Leiber further discloses checking operating and sensor information to detect predefined error states, including failure of pressure supply DV, failure of pressure sensor, and abnormal pressure-volume behavior. When the X-Booster pressure supply or controller fails, the pedal-travel signal becomes the input signal for the ESP booster, and ESP pump P draws from reservoir VB the brake-fluid volume required to generate the controller-requested braking pressure (Leiber, pp. 10-11).
Accordingly, Leiber discloses a control device configured to: (i) read out or check based on at least one signal, whether at least one predefined error state exists at the brake-actuation hydraulic unit; and (ii) based on determining that the error state exists, activate ESP pump P to draw from reservoir VB the brake-fluid volume derived by the BKV control and required to generate the controller-requested braking pressure (Leiber, pp. 8-11). Leiber further discloses the ESC hydraulic unit, the brake-actuation hydraulic unit, and the wheel brake cylinders hydraulically connected to the ESC hydraulic unit. Because the pump and regenerative-motor functions are recited using “and/or,” the rejection relies on the pump alternative; separate disclosure of controlling an electric motor to effect a motor braking torque is not required for claims 13, 18, 20, and 24.
Leiber further discloses the corresponding method of checking for the X-Booster error state and, when the error state is detected, activating ESP pump P to draw the specified brake-fluid volume from reservoir VB. Specifically, Leiber states, “If during braking the ECU of the X-Boost fails, then the ESP booster must take over the function of the brake booster BKV,” and that, for this purpose, the ESP must be able to draw volume from reservoir VB (Leiber, p. 10).
Leiber does not expressly disclose an ESP control unit included in the ESC hydraulic unit and configured to coordinate operation of the pump and associated valves.
Leiber II teaches an X-Booster hydraulic module and an ESP motor pump hydraulic module and expressly teaches that the two modules may be integrated into a single unit. Leiber II further teaches an ESP control unit 95 communicatively connected to X-Booster control unit 9 by a CAN bus and configured to issue control commands that actuate pump motor 91 and the associated valves (Leiber II, ¶¶ 0068-73, 0248-0249).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leiber’s braking system to include Leiber II;s ESP control unit and coordinated pump-and-valve control and to integrate the X-Booster and ESP hydraulic units in order to reduce installation space, shorten hydraulic connections, reduce external interfaces, and automatically operate the redundant ESP pressure source when an X-Booster error is detected.
Regarding claim 14, Leiber as modified above further discloses that, upon failure of pressure supply DV, pedal travel detected by sensors 2a, 2b becomes the input signal for the ESP booster. The controller determines the required braking pressure and corresponding delivery volume from the pedal-travel signal and/or pressure signal and activates ESP pump P to draw the corresponding volume from reservoir VB (Leiber, pp. 8-9).
Regarding claim 16, Leiber as modified discloses detecting, as the at least one predefined error state based on the at least one signal, a functional impairment and/or failure of at least one sensor apparatus of the brake-actuation hydraulic unit, namely failure of pressure sensor DG (Leiber, p. 10). Note: because the listed error states are recited using “and/or,” disclosure of the sensor-apparatus failure satisfies claim 16.
Regarding claim 19, Leiber as modified above further discloses high-pressure switching valves HSV1, HSV2 connecting the intake paths of pump P to the reservoir-connected hydraulic circuits and teaches operating pump P to draw fluid from reservoir VB during ESP-boost operation (Leiber, pp. 7-8; Fig. 1).
However, Leiber does not expressly disclose the control device switching at least one of high-pressure switching valves HSV1 and HSV2 to an open state while pump P is activated.
Leiber II further teaches that the ESP controller issues coordinated commands to the pump motor 91 and the associated valves and teaches reservoir suction paths for the ESP pump (Leiber II, ¶¶ 0139-140, 0248-0249, 0337-0338).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Leiber’s controller to open the corresponding high-pressure switching valve while activating pump P, as taught by Leiber II, in order to establish the reservoir-to-pump intake path, provide sufficient brake-fluid to the operating pump, and enable timely pressure generation during fallback braking.
Regarding claim 21, Leiber as modified above further discloses separate power supplies for the X-Booster and the ESP hydraulic unit, including an embodiment in which the ESP unit is connected to a 12-volt battery and the X-Booster is connected to a DC/DC converter (Leiber, p. 5).
Regarding claim 22, Leiber as modified above further discloses X-Booster control electronics configured to control at least the brake booster, namely motorized pressure supply DV, based on signals from pedal-travel sensors 2a, 2b (Leiber, pp. 8-9).
Regarding claim 23, Leiber as modified above further discloses a motorized piston-cylinder device integrated into the X-Booster hydraulic system, including motor 8, spindle 7, piston 10, and working chamber 11, wherein motor 8 moves piston 10 to displace brake-fluid into the brake circuits (Leiber, p. 9).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leiber et al. (WO 2018233854 A1; hereinafter “Leiber”) in view of Leiber et al. (WO 2020224814 A1; hereinafter “Leiber II”) and further in view of Witte et al. (EP 2719593 A1) (Applicant Cited).
Regarding claim 17, Leiber as modified discloses, while no predefined error state exists, normal ABS operation using pump P, inlet valves EV, and outlet valves AV, including pressure reduction to prevent wheel locking (Leiber, p. 10).
However, Leiber does not expressly identify the wheel-speed signal used to detect the locking wheel.
Witte teaches wheel-speed sensors 15, control device 19, valves 11, pumps P1, P2, and slip-control operation based on the wheel-speed signals (Witte, ¶¶ 0054-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Witte’s wheel-speed sensors and wheel-slip control in Leiber’s ESP unit in order to identify which wheel is locking, selectively reduce the hydraulic pressure at the affected wheel brake cylinder, and maintain vehicle steerability and stability during braking.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leiber et al. (WO 2018233854 A1; hereinafter “Leiber”) in view of Leiber et al. (WO 2020224814 A1; hereinafter “Leiber II”) and further in view of Schlimme (US 20210261161 A1) (Applicant Cited).
Regarding claim 15, Leiber as modified discloses determining a target total braking force from pedal travel and allocating that braking force between generator braking and hydraulic braking, thereby determining a target motor braking torque such that the combined braking forces produce the requested vehicle deceleration (Leiber, p. 6 and p. 11).
Leiber does not expressly disclose applying the target motor braking torque in response to the detected brake-actuation hydraulic-unit error state.
Schlimme teaches switching from normal operation to a failure mode when the primary brake system has completely or partially failed and, in the failure mode, operating vehicle propulsion electric machines 12, 13 as generators to produce a nonzero braking torque at the front axle and/or rear axle, and the corresponding wheels (Schlimme, ¶¶ 0059, 0060-61, 0069, 0075).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Leiber’s controller, upon detecting the X-Booster error state, to operate Schlimme’s propulsion electric machine in the regenerative mode in order to replace at least part of the unavailable hydraulic braking force, maintain the requested vehicle deceleration, and provide an independent braking contribution without requiring an additional braking actuator.
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
/DAVID R MORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights