DETAILED ACTION
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.
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 7-14 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.
In claim 7, Applicant recites “a check valve, preferably arranged between the pump and the control valve, in particular arranged between the pump and the hydraulic accumulator.”
In claim 8, line 1, Applicant recites “preferably, a compact wheel loader … “
In claim 9, line 4, Applicant recites “preferably, the braking signal is an angle of the braking pedal … “
In claim 10, line 3, Applicant recites “in particular proportionally to, the determined braking signal …”
It is unclear if the limitations are required by the claim language.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClanahan (US 6260668 B1) in view of Hilberer (EP 1953054 A1)).
Re claim 1, McClanahan teaches a braking device (62) for braking a vehicle (3), the braking device comprising: a hydraulically actuated service brake configured for braking the vehicle, wherein the service brake comprises a service brake cylinder (100) that is configured to transfer a service braking force induced by a master brake cylinder (122) in operation to a disk pack unit (99) while braking and the disk pack unit that is configured for braking the vehicle depending on the braking force, and a hydraulically actuated parking brake (140), wherein the parking brake is a spring applied hydraulic release brake that is configured for braking the vehicle depending on a parking brake force, wherein the parking brake comprises a spring braking unit (105) that is configured to generate a default parking brake force and to transfer the default parking brake force onto a parking brake cylinder (108), and a hydraulic park braking control unit (148) that is configured to generate a release force and to transfer the release force onto the parking brake cylinder in order to control the parking brake force, and the parking brake cylinder that is in mechanical contact with the disk pack unit, wherein the parking brake cylinder is configured to transfer the parking braking force to the disk pack unit while braking depending on the control parking brake force and the default parking brake force, wherein the hydraulic park braking control unit comprises a control valve (156) that is hydraulically connected to the parking brake and configured for controlling a hydraulic pressure inside of the parking brake depending on the braking signal for hydraulically actuating and/or releasing the parking brake, and the service brake cylinder (100) of the service brake is different from the parking brake cylinder (108) of the parking brake.
McClanahan does not teach a sensor unit that is adapted for detecting a braking signal for braking the vehicle, wherein the hydraulic park braking control unit comprises a control valve that is hydraulically connected to the parking brake and configured for controlling a hydraulic pressure inside of the parking brake depending on the braking signal for hydraulically actuating and/or releasing the parking brake, and the service brake cylinder of the service brake is different from the parking brake cylinder of the parking brake.
Hilberer teach a sensor unit (34) that is adapted for detecting a braking signal for braking the vehicle, wherein the hydraulic park braking control unit comprises a control valve (28) that is hydraulically connected to the parking brake (24) and configured for controlling a hydraulic pressure inside of the parking brake depending on the braking signal for hydraulically actuating and/or releasing the parking brake. (Fig. 1, Translation – Page 6, 4th Par.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the parking brake control as taught by Hilberer to maintain braking in the event of an emergency.
Re claim 2, McClanahan as modified teaches wherein the control valve (Hilberer - 22) is a proportional valve and/or a 3/2 directional valve and/or a spring reset valve.
Re claim 4, McClanahan as modified teaches wherein the control valve (22) controls the hydraulic flow into the parking brake (24) for releasing the parking brake and/or out of the parking brake for braking the parking brake depending on the braking signal detected by the sensor unit (34). (Hilberer – Fig. 1)
Re claim 5, McClanahan as modified teaches wherein the parking brake (24) is configured to being actuated depending on an opening pressure, and/or the service brake (54) is configured to being actuated depending on an actuation pressure. (Hilberer – Fig. 1)
Re claim 6, McClanahan as modified teaches wherein the service brake (54) comprises a hydraulic service braking control unit (40) that is configured to generate the service braking force and to transfer the service braking force to the service brake cylinder (54). (Hilberer – Fig. 1)
Re claim 7, McClanahan as modified teaches a braking system for braking a vehicle, the braking system comprising: a braking device according to claim 1 and a check valve (44). McClanahan as modified does not teach a hydraulic pump for providing a hydraulic medium inside of the parking brake, and/or a hydraulic accumulator for providing a hydraulic medium inside of the parking brake, and/or a check valve, preferably arranged between the pump and the control valve, arranged between the pump and the hydraulic accumulator. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a pump and/or accumulator since they are both well-known alternatives for providing pressure in braking systems.
Re claim 8, McClanahan as modified teaches a vehicle comprising a braking device according to claim 1. (Abstract)
Re claim 9 McClanahan as modified teaches a method for braking a vehicle the vehicle comprising a braking device according to claim 1 the method comprising the steps of: determining the braking signal detected by the sensor unit, and controlling the hydraulic pressure inside of the parking brake depending on the determined braking signal for hydraulically actuating and/or releasing the parking brake in order to brake the vehicle. (Hilberer - Fig. 1, Translation – Page 6, 4th Par.)
Re claim 10, McClanahan as modified teaches in a regular operation of the parking brake (24), the parking brake is actuated depending on, proportionally to, the determined braking signal, and/or in a failure operation of the parking brake, in that the hydraulic park braking control unit brake fails actuating the spring applied hydraulic re-lease brake, the service brake (54) is actuated depending on the determined braking signal. (Hilberer - Fig. 1, Translation – Page 5, Par. 3, Page 6, 4th Par.)
Re claim 11, McClanahan as modified teaches wherein the parking brake (24) is released if the control parking brake force resulting from the hydraulic pressure inside of the parking brake is larger than the default parking brake force induced by the spring brake unit; and/or the parking brake is hydraulically actuated if the control parking brake force resulting from the hydraulic pressure inside of the parking brake is smaller than the default parking brake force induced by the spring brake unit. (Hilberer - Fig. 1, Translation – Page 5, Par. 3, Page 6, 4th Par.)
Re claim 12, McClanahan as modified teaches a computer program comprising program code means for performing the steps of claim 9 when said program is run on a computer. Electronic control units 10, 12, 14 would require computer program code to perform the operations.
Re claim 13, McClanahan as modified teaches a computer readable medium carrying a computer program comprising program code means for performing the steps of claim 9 when said program product is run on a computer. Electronic control units 12, 14 would require computer program code to perform the operations.
Re claim 14, McClanahan as modified teaches a control unit (12, 14) configured for controlling a braking device wherein the control unit is configured to perform the steps of claim 9. (Translation - Page 5, 1st Par.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schmidt et al. teach a similar braking device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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.
/MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
MTWAugust 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights