DETAILED ACTION
Specification
This objection is withdrawn due to the amendments made to the specification.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16, 19, 20, 24-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Krueger (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0056961).
Regarding claim 16, Krueger discloses a brake system, comprising:
a dry brake pedal (124) having a pedal sensor (126, 128) configured to detect a driver braking input;
four electrically controllable wheel brake modules, each wheel brake module having an electrically controllable wheel brake (203a-d);
a first axle controller (200a) assigned to two wheel brake modules and a second axle controller (200b) assigned to two other wheel brake modules, wherein each of the axle controllers is connected to the brake pedal via a respective dedicated signal line (shown in fig. 3c), and wherein each of the axle controllers includes at least one control unit (¶31) configured to control at least one wheel brake of a wheel brake module assigned to the respective axle controller;
wherein at least one bidirectional signal line (shown in fig. 3c between 200a and 200b) is configured to provide redundant communication between the first axle controller and the second axle controller;
wherein the axle controllers are each configured to enable a control unit of one of the axle controllers to take over control of a wheel brake of one of the wheel brake modules assigned to the other axle controller via the at least one bidirectional signal line (¶47).
Regarding claim 19 which depends from claim 16, Krueger discloses wherein, each axle controller includes only one control unit, configured to control two wheel brakes of the wheel brake modules assigned to the respective axle controller (controllers in communication with each other can be considered many controllers or one single controller due to being essentially the same/one processor communicating to perform the programming).
Regarding claim 20 which depends from claim 16, Krueger discloses wherein each wheel brake module includes at least one of a brake actuator (¶33), a sensor (actuator option addressed), a valve, or a warning lamp.
Regarding claim 24 which depends from claim 16, Krueger discloses wherein the axle controllers are each configured to enable a control unit of one of the axle controllers to take over control of a control unit of the other axle controller via the at least one bidirectional signal line (¶47).
Regarding claim 25 which depends from claim 24, Krueger discloses wherein the at least one bidirectional signal line is routed via the brake pedal (the bidirectional line allows for communication so as to identify error).
Regarding claim 26 which depends from claim 16, Krueger discloses wherein the brake pedal is connected via a first dedicated signal line to the first axle controller and via a second dedicated signal line to the second axle controller the first dedicated signal line and the second dedicated signal line being separate from one another (shown in fig. 3c each controller having their own line to the brake).
Regarding claim 27 which depends from claim 16, Krueger discloses wherein each wheel brake is an electromechanical brake (¶33).
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.
Claim(s) 17, 18, 21, 22, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krueger (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0056961) as applied to claim 16 above, further in view of Bohm (U.S. Pat. No. 6,345,225).
Regarding claim 17 which depends from claim 16, Krueger does not disclose the limitations of claim 17.
Bohm, which deals in braking redundancy, teaches wherein the axle controller assigned to a front axle includes two control units, wherein each control unit being configured to control a wheel brake of one of the wheel brake modules assigned to the first axle controller (fig. 4, r1 r11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Krueger with the dual processors of Bohm because this provides fail safe operation (col. 4, lines 41-45).
Regarding claim 18 which depends from claim 16, Krueger discloses wherein the second axle controller assigned to the rear axle includes only one control unit (shown in fig. 4)
Krueger does not disclose and the first axle controller assigned to the front axle includes two control units.
Bohm discloses and the first axle controller assigned to the front axle includes two control units (r1, r11)
Regarding claim 21 which depends from claim 20, Bohm discloses wherein each axle controller includes two control units configured that, if one control unit in the axle controller fails, the other control unit in the same axle controller carries out the control of the brake actuator, the respective valve, the signal evaluation of the sensor, and/or the operation of the warning lamp (col. 5, lines 4-35).
Regarding claim 22 which depends from claim 16, Bohm discloses wherein each axle controller includes two control units connected to one another such that, if one control unit fails, the other control unit takes over the control the wheel brake module assigned to the failed control unit (col. 6, lines 35-45).
Regarding claim 29 which depends from claim 16, Bohm discloses wherein the at least one control unit is implemented as two control units configured as two cores of a single processor (shown in the figures are at least two control units).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krueger (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0056961) as applied to claim 16 above, and in view of Guenter (U.S. Pat. No. 12,143,045).
Regarding claim 23 which depends from claim 16, Krueger discloses wherein one control unit includes a control connection to a bridge for connection to another control unit (¶34 discloses using H-bridges and other computer circuitry), and
Krueger does not disclose wherein a cross switch is disposed in the control connection, and/or at least one fuse is disposed in the respective connection between the B6 bridge and a wheel brake.
Guenter, which deals in braking control, teaches that the bridge is a B6 bridge and wherein a cross switch is disposed in the respective control connection (col. 7, lines 60-67 discloses b6 bridges and fig. 7 shows two microcontrollers that have connections going through B6 bridges and switches), and/or
wherein fuses are disposed in the respective connection between the B6 bridge and a wheel brake.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Bohm with the bridges of Guenter because these are known electrical connections (col. 15, lines 55-58).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krueger (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0056961) as applied to claim 16 above, and in view of Baehrle (U.S. Pat. No. 11,708,058).
Regarding claim 28 which depends from claim 16, Krueger does not disclose further comprising a pawl integrated into at least two wheel brake modules.
Baehrle, which deals in brakes, teaches further comprising a pawl integrated into at least two wheel brake modules (col. 2, lines 55-64).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Bohm with the locking pawl of Baehrle because this arrests the drive device to hinder movement (col. 7, lines 15-30).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16-29 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GONZALO LAGUARDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5920. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-Th Alt. F.
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.
GONZALO LAGUARDA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747 email: gonzalo.laguarda@uspto.gov
/GONZALO LAGUARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights