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 § 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.
Claim 11 is 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the reservoir" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2010/0198475 A1 to Stolzl et al..
Re-claim 1, Stolzl et al. disclose a brake system for motor vehicles with wheel brakes, comprising: a primary brake system 17 with a hydraulic provision device (such as master cylinder 5 or pump) and a pressure modulator (such as valves 7/8) connected to two hydraulic wheel brakes; a dry secondary brake system 17’ with two further wheel brakes 2; a brake request apparatus (such as pedal 3 or sensor 11); an open loop and closed loop control unit 14 connected to the brake request apparatus (see at least paragraph 30), the open loop and closed loop control unit is configured to actuate the pressure provision device (such as controlling a vacuum booster 4 connected to the master cylinder 5, or operation of the pump).
Re-claim 2, the brake request apparatus is a driver’s brake request detection device.
Re-claim 3, a pedal unit 3 is integrated with the driver’s request detection device.
Re-claim 5, the open loop and closed loop control unit actuates both the primary brake system and the secondary brake system (see paragraph 30).
Re-claim 6, the two hydraulic wheel brakes are front wheel brakes (see paragraph 27).
Re-claim 7, a pressure switching valve (such as valve downstream of 5 along conduit 6) is switched between the pressure provision device 5 and the pressure modulator.
Re-claim 8, the pressure modulator comprises an inlet valve 8 and an outlet valve 7 for each front wheel brake 1.
Re-claim 11, each inlet valve is a normally open valve, each outlet valve is a normally closed valve, the pressure switching valve is a normally open valve, in a normal state the pressure provision device is hydraulically connected to a reservoir.
Re-claim 12, wheel brakes 2 have an integrated parking brake 12.
Re-claim 13, the open loop and closed loop control unit actuates the parking brake (see paragraph 30, as desired by operation of 13).
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.
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) 1-8 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10 2012 217 825 A1 to Jungbecker et al. in view of Stolzl et al.
Re-claim 1, Jungbecker et al. teach a brake system for motor vehicles with wheel brakes, comprising: a primary brake system VA with a hydraulic provision device 5 and a pressure modulator (such as valves 6/7) connected to two hydraulic wheel brakes; a dry secondary brake system HA with two further wheel brakes 10; a brake request apparatus (such as pedal 3 or sensor 25); at least a closed loop control unit 12 (see figure 2 and note the feedback signals) connected to the brake request apparatus, the closed loop control unit is configured to actuate the pressure provision device. However, Jungbecker et al. is silent regarding the control unit having open loop control.
Stolzl et al. teaches a brake control unit utilizing both open loop control and closed loop control. The open loop control provides an immediate and desired brake force as requested, and is commonly used in the brake arts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the control unit of Jungbecker et al. with an open loop control as taught by Stolzl et al., thereby effectively actuated the wheel brake to the desire value.
Re-claim 2, the brake request apparatus is a driver’s brake request detection device 50.
Re-claim 3, a pedal unit is integrated with the driver’s request detection device.
Re-claim 4, the brake request apparatus is an autonomous driver (see page 3 paragraph 9 and how the system is actuated independently).
Re-claim 5, as modified by Stolzl et al. the open loop and closed loop control unit would have actuated both the primary brake system and the secondary brake system (as also shown in figure 2).
Re-claim 6, the two hydraulic wheel brakes are front wheel brakes VA.
Re-claim 7, a pressure switching valve 26 is switched between the pressure provision device 5 and the pressure modulator 6/7.
Re-claim 8, the pressure modulator comprises an inlet valve 6 and an outlet valve 7 for each front wheel brake VA.
Re-claim 11, each inlet valve is a normally open valve, each outlet valve is a normally closed valve, the pressure switching valve is a normally open valve, in a normal state the pressure provision device is hydraulically connected to a reservoir 4 (via check valve 40).
Re-claim 12, wheel brakes HA have an integrated parking brake (see page 4 paragraph 3 of the provided translation).
Re-claim 13, the open loop and closed loop control unit actuates the parking brake (as part of control unit 12).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stolzl et al. in view of US 2016/0167629 A1 to Bunk.
Stolzl et al. fails to the brake request apparatus as an autonomous driver, but does suggest vehicle to vehicle and vehicle to infrastructure communication (paragraph 17), as well as operating the brakes in response to external influences (paragraph 32).
Bunk teaches a vehicle with autonomous braking carried out via the vacuum booster (see paragraph 5). This operation is easily applicable to the vacuum booster present in Stolzl et al. and would have improved the safe operation of the vehicle with the brakes being responsive to the surrounding environment. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the apparatus of Stolzl et al. with an autonomous braking driver as taught by Bunk, thus improving the safe operation of the vehicle.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jungbecker et al. in view of Stolzl et al. as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of US 2016/0200307 A1 to Feigel.
Jungbecker et al. teaches each respective inlet valve 6 as a normally open valve and the pressure switching valve 26 as a normally closed valve. However, Jungbecker et al. fail to suggest each respective outlet valve as a normally open valve.
Feigel teaches various hydraulic brake arrangements in connection with a pressure provision device, such as normally open inlet and normally closed outlet (as in Jungbecker et al.), but also a normally open inlet and normally open outlet (see figures 9 and 10). Jungbecker et al. further teaches that the arrangement shown in at least figure 9 allows for a gently pressure build-up (see paragraph 95). Each of the circuit arrangements are seen as interchangeable with each other to reach a desired control outcome. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the hydraulic circuit of Jungbecker et al. with a hydraulic circuit having normally open inlet and outlet valves as shown in Feigel, thus providing a circuit with a specific operational outcome.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 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. Zimmerman, Linhoff, Roll, Jager Leiber and Ganzel each teach a vehicle brake system with combined hydraulic circuit and a dry circuit. .
Any inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Thomas Williams whose telephone number is 571-272-7128.
The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday from 6:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
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.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding
should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-6584.
TJW /THOMAS J WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 October 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights