DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement has been received and considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5,13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5 it is unclear from the specification and drawings what exactly constitutes the “first subset 45 “ of the first and second electronic brake control systems 40a,40b since in figure 4 it identifies the same feature at 40a,40b. What is the electrical/mechanical difference between 46,46 and 40a,40b? What electrical components/mechanical features comprise this ‘subset’ 45,46? The same problem applied to the ‘second subset 46’.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1,4-12,14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102009046238 A1 in view of Holzwarth 8,639,428.
Regarding claim 1, as broadly claimed, DE ‘238 shows in figures 1 and 2:
An electromechanical brake system for a vehicle comprising first and second energy supply devices 19-22 and first and second system control units/devices 15,16; a plurality of electromechanical brake actuator devices 7 (see figure 2) and a first and second plurality of brake control systems 13,14. Note their connections at 11,12.
Lacking in DE ‘238 is a specific showing of a ‘further’ control device connected to either the first or second electronic brake control systems.
The reference to Holzwarth also shows an electromechanical brake control system in figures 1-5 but shows a ‘further’ or third control device C3 ‘connected to’ (as broadly claimed) at least one of the other electronic brake control systems BM1-BM4.
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have provided a ‘further’ or third control device (of some type) connected to either or both of the first and second electronic brake control systems in DE ‘238, as taught by Holzwarth, for improved system redundancy as vehicle applications warrant.
Regarding claim 4, as broadly claimed, DE ‘238 appears to meet the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 5, subject to the 112 1st rejection above, and as best understood these limitations are considered to be met.
Regarding claim 6 DE ‘238 lacks specifically showing a third energy supply device and a third system control device.
However Holzwarth shows these features in figure 1 at HVE and C3 and that the energy supply and control systems are interconnected.
It would have been obvious to have provided the brake system of DE ‘238 with a third energy supply device and a third system control device, as taught by Holzwarth, (and as broadly claimed) for improved system redundancy as vehicle applications warrant.
Note that as broadly claimed all of these energy supply and control devices are shown to be interconnected.
Regarding claim 7, as explained above, and as broadly claimed these limitations are considered to be met.
Regarding claim 8 it would have been obvious to have provided an electrical output on each of the energy supply devices to power a different vehicle system than the EMB system simply as providing a means of extra vehicle system redundancy.
Regarding claim 9 see the windings 29,33 and 30,34 in figure 2 of DE ‘238.
Regarding claims 10-12,14 as explained above and as readily apparent from the figures these limitations are considered to be met.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE ‘238/Holzwarth as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 202124037 U.
Regarding claim 2 DE ‘238, as modified above, lacks specifically stating anything about a ‘fieldbus interface’ connection on each of the control devices 15,16.
However as broadly claimed this type of connection is believed to be inherent in DE ‘238.
Nevertheless CN ‘037 shows an automated vehicle that uses a fieldbus interface as discussed in para 0023 of the machine translation.
It would have been obvious to have provided a fieldbus interface on the control devices 15,16 in the brake system of DE ‘238, as taught by CN ‘037, since it is known that a fieldbus interface is a standardized communication system used in industrial automation to connect and integrate devices such as sensors, actuators, and controllers. It enables seamless, real-time data exchange and control across various devices, improving efficiency, flexibility, and reliability in industrial processes.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE ‘238/Holzwarth as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saoyama 10,634,202.
Regarding claim 3 DE ‘238 lacks the specifics of the EMB arrangement used in the brake system, namely one that provides some type of locking mechanism.
However Saoyama shows an EMB with a locking mechanism at 70.
It would have been obvious to have used an EMB provided with a locking mechanism in the brake system of DE ‘238, as taught by Saoyama, to ensure the vehicle remains in a stationary state when parked.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE ‘238/Holzwarth as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of U.S. 2017/0361825 to Drumm et al.
Regarding claim 13 DE ‘238 lacks specifically stating anything about a virtual driver.
However as broadly claimed, and as indicated by DRumm in para 0005 the braking command is actuated by a computer system that acts as a virtual driver.
Therefore the ordinary skilled worker in the art would recognize that the brake control system of DE ‘238 is capable of acting in this manner since it is computer controlled, as taught by Drumm.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7123. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 A.M.-7:00P.M..
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, Rob 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights