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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “at least partially arcuate” printed circuit board of Claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim does not further limit the base claim as the base claim 1 recites “based on the difference” of the distance traveled by the first target and the distance traveled by the second target, which encompasses the limitation recited in Claim 11 “based on at least one out of the distance traveled by the first target and the distance traveled by the second target”.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marx (US 20230302897 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Marx discloses a device for a brake-by-wire system of a vehicle, comprising: a distance sensor (36, 38) configured to: sense a distance traveled by a first target (42) coupled to a brake pedal of the vehicle, and sense a distance traveled by a second target (40) coupled to the brake pedal; and a processing circuit (12) configured to: determine a difference between the distance traveled by the first target (42) and the distance traveled by the second target (40), determine, based on the difference, a force acting on the brake pedal, and generate, based on the force, a control signal for activating a brake of the brake-by-wire system (see Fig. 1, [0042], [0064]).
Regarding Claim 4, Marx discloses wherein the distance sensor (36, 38) comprises an inductive sensor (see Fig. 1, [0032]).
Regarding Claim 11, Marx discloses wherein the processing circuit (12) is configured to generate the control signal based on at least one out of the distance traveled by the first target and the distance traveled by the second target (see Fig. 1, [0033]).
Regarding Claim 12, Marx discloses a pedal system for a brake-by-wire system of a vehicle, comprising: a first target (42); a second target (40); and a device (10) comprising: a distance sensor (36, 38) configured to: sense a distance traveled by the first target (42) coupled to a brake pedal of the vehicle, and sense a distance traveled by the second target (40) coupled to the brake pedal; and a processing circuit (12) configured to: determine a difference between the distance traveled by the first target and the distance traveled by the second target, determine, based on the difference, a force acting on the brake pedal, and generate, based on the force, a control signal for activating a brake of the brake-by-wire system (see Fig. 1, [0042], [0064]).
Regarding Claim 13, Marx discloses further comprising: a first spring (34) configured to couple the first target (42) to a vehicle frame (20) of the vehicle (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 14, Marx discloses further comprising: a second spring (32) configured to couple the second target (40) to the first target (42) (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 15, Marx discloses wherein the second spring (32) is mechanically preloaded (see Fig. 1, [0060]).
Regarding Claim 16, Marx discloses further comprising: the brake pedal, wherein the brake pedal has a footrest (16) which is coupled to the rest of the brake pedal using a spring (32) (see Fig. 1, [0045]).
Regarding Claim 17, Marx discloses a brake-by-wire system, comprising: a pedal system (10) comprising: a first target (42) coupled to a brake pedal of the vehicle; a second target (44) coupled to the brake pedal of the vehicle; and a device comprising: a distance sensor (36, 38) configured to: sense a distance traveled by the first target (42), and sense a distance traveled by the second target (44); and a processing circuit (12) configured to: determine a difference between the distance traveled by the first target (42) and the distance traveled by the second target (44), determine, based on the difference, a force acting on the brake pedal, and generate, based on the force, a control signal for activating a brake of the brake-by-wire system; and the brake, wherein the brake is configured to exert a braking action on the vehicle based on the control signal (see Fig. 1, [0003-0005], [0009], [0042], [0064]).
Regarding Claim 18, Marx discloses a method for a brake-by-wire system of a vehicle, comprising: sensing, by a distance sensor (36, 38), a distance traveled by a first target (42) coupled to a brake pedal of the vehicle; sensing, by the distance sensor (36, 38), a distance traveled by a second target (40) coupled to the brake pedal; determining, by a processing circuit (12), a difference between the distance traveled by the first target (42) and the distance traveled by the second target (44); determining, by the processing circuit (12), force acting on the brake pedal based on the difference; and generating, by the processing circuit (12), a control signal, for activating a brake of the brake-by-wire system, based on the force (see Fig. 1, [0003-0005], [0009], [0042], [0064]).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marx (US 20230302897 A1) as applied in Claim 1, above, in view of Austermeier et. al. (DE 102019121245 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Marx discloses the device as claimed in claim 1.
Marx does not disclose wherein the processing circuit is configured to detect based on the force a mechanical blockage of the brake pedal.
Austermeier teaches a processing circuit configured to detect based on the force a mechanical blockage of the brake pedal (see [0010], [0012]).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of detecting a blockage using force of Austermeier with the device for a brake-by-wire system of Marx in order to improve safety by identifying malfunctions.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marx (US 20230302897 A1) as applied in Claim 1, above, in view of Kerschbaumer (US 20220194331 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Marx discloses the device as claimed in claim 1.
Marx does not disclose wherein the distance sensor comprises an incremental encoder.
Kerschbaumer teaches wherein a distance sensor comprises an incremental encoder (see [0045]).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of using an incremental encoder distance sensor of Kerschbaumer with the device for a brake-by-wire system of Marx in order to achieve a cheap, high resolution, and quick distance measurement.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marx (US 20230302897 A1) as applied in Claim 4, above, in view of Jones (US 20190301896 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Marx discloses the device as claimed in claim 4 wherein the inductive sensor (36, 38) is configured to sense the distance traveled by the first target (42) and the distance traveled by the second target (40) (see Fig. 1).
Marx does not explicitly disclose wherein the inductive sensor comprises: an excitation coil; a first periodic pair of secondary coils, and a second periodic pair of secondary coils.
Jones teaches an inductive sensor comprising: an excitation coil (33); a first periodic pair of secondary coils (42), and a secondary pair of secondary coils (41) (see Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the inductive sensor of Jones with the device for a brake-by-wire system of Marx in order for the inductive sensor to accurately measure distance using the electro magnetic fields of the coils (see US 20190301896 A1 [Jones]; [0038], [0040]). In combination the Jones and Marx teach wherein the inductive sensor comprises: an excitation coil; a first periodic pair of secondary coils, which is configured to sense the distance traveled by the first target; and a second periodic pair of secondary coils, which is configured to sense the distance traveled by the second target.
Regarding Claim 6, Marx modified by Jones teaches wherein the first (42) and the second pair (41) of secondary coils are planar (see US 20190301896 A1 [Jones]; Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 7, Marx modified by Jones teaches wherein the excitation coil (33) is configured to generate an electromagnetic coupling with the first (41) and the second pair (42) of secondary coils (see US 20190301896 A1 [Jones]; Fig. 5, [0052-0053]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marx (US 20230302897 A1) as modified by Jones (US 20190301896 A1) in Claim 5, above, further in view of Pichler et. al. (US 20220128381 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Marx modified by Jones teaches the device as claimed in claim 5.
Marx modified by Jones does not teach wherein the first or the second pair of secondary coils has a higher winding density than the other of the first and the second pair of secondary coils.
Pichler teaches an inductance sensor wherein the second pair of secondary coils has a higher winding density than the other pair of secondary coils (see Fig. 18).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of using two different coil winding density of Pichler with the device for a brake-by-wire system of Marx modified by Jones in order to allow and increase the resolution of long stroke measurements (see US 20220128381 A1 [Pichler]; [0027], [0127]).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marx (US 20230302897 A1) as applied in Claim 1, above, in view of Lee et. al. (US 20200064158 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Marx discloses the device as claimed in claim 1 further comprising a circuit board (44) (see Fig. 1).
Marx does not explicitly disclose further comprising: a printed circuit board comprising the distance sensor.
Lee teaches a printed circuit board comprising the distance sensor (see [0003]).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of a printed circuit board of Lee with the device for a brake-by-wire system of Marx in order to reduce assembly time.
Regarding Claim 10, Marx does not disclose wherein the printed circuit board is at least partially arcuate.
Lee teaches wherein the printed circuit board is at least partially arcuate (see [0034]).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of an arcuate printed circuit board of Lee with the device for a brake-by-wire system of Marx in order to increase the packaging options, increasing the space utilization optimization and improving the compactness of the device (see US 20200064158 A1 [Lee]; [0034]).
Prior art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rueffer (WO 2013007752 A2) discloses a brake pedal device using an inductive sensor to track two targets wherein the brake pedal device further comprises springs coupled to the targets and the pedal body.
Huge et. al. (DE 102020132845 A1) discloses a brake pedal device using an inductive sensor to track two targets wherein a processing circuit is configured to determine a force action of the brake pedal from distances.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shea Irvin whose telephone number is (571)272-9952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 - 17:00.
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.
/S.W.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/DAVID R MORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights