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.
Claims 3-5, and 7 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.
Claim 3 lines 2-3, it is unclear if the recited “a second axle brake” is intended to reference the previously cited second axle brakes (cl.1 line 3), or another second axle brake.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected due to their dependence upon claim 3.
Claim 7 lines 2-3, it is unclear if the recited “a second axle brake” is intended to reference the previously cited second axle brakes (cl.1 line 3), or another second axle brake.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], 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.
Claims 9 and 10 are 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. The subject matter of claim 9 does not appear to further limit the subject matter recited in claim 1, specifically the recited matter of claim 9 appears in lines 1-3 of instant claim 1. 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 § 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, 2, 6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0001908 A1 to Einig et al.
Re-claim 1, Einig et al. teach a brake system for a vehicle, comprising:
two first axle brakes 102C/102D for respective first axle wheels of a first axle of the vehicle;
two second axle brakes 102A/102B for respective second axle wheels of a second axle of the vehicle;
a circuit (such as part of actuator 108 and unit 1/2) provides a hydraulic fluid to the two first axle brakes and the two second axle brakes, the circuit comprises an associated first axle inlet valve (such as one of 130B, 136C and 136D) to admit the hydraulic fluid, and an associated first axle outlet valve (138C and 138D) to discharge the hydraulic fluid, for each of the two first axle brakes, the circuit comprises an associated second axle inlet valve (one of 130A, 136A, 136B) to admit the hydraulic fluid, and an associated second axle outlet valve (138A and 138B) to discharge the hydraulic fluid, for each of the two second axle brakes, the associated first axle inlet valves and the associated second axle inlet valves are configured to be open when de-energized, and the associated first axle outlet valves and the associated second axle outlet valves are configured to be closed when de-energized;
a brake pedal device 104 is disposed outside the circuit and configured to actuate the two first axle brakes and the two second axle brakes, the brake pedal device is connected to the circuit via at least one circuit valve;
a sensor device 144 provides a signal for determining a displacement of a brake pedal of the brake pedal device;
an electromotive actuator 108 provides a hydraulic pressure during operation in the circuit;
a primary controller (such as 114B) is operably connected to the first axle inlet valves (the valve 130B and unit 2 are controlled by 114B and first axle outlet valves, such that, during operation, the primary controller actuates the first axle inlet valves and the first axle outlet valves, wherein the primary controller is connected to the sensor device and the electromotive actuator (via coils 148B), such that the primary controller provides, using the actuator, a hydraulic pressure in the circuit as a function of the determined displacement;
a secondary controller 114A is operably connected to the second axle inlet valves such that, during operation, the secondary controller actuates the second axle inlet valves,
when the brake system is in an error-free state of at least the primary controller, the brake pedal device is hydraulically separated from the circuit so that the hydraulic pressure is provided in the circuit by the actuator as a function of the determined displacement (as is known in a brake-by-wire or electro-hydraulic operation),
the brake system is configured such that, in response to an error of the primary controller the brake pedal device is connected to the circuit such that the brake pedal displaces hydraulic fluid in the circuit in response to actuation and thus provides a hydraulic pressure in the circuit, and in response to the error the hydraulic pressure in the circuit is supplied to the first axle brakes (paragraph 18 describes a fail condition in which fluid pressure from the pedal device is transmitted only to the front wheel brakes 102C and 102D).
However, Einig et al. is silent regarding the second controller closing valve 130A when an error in the primary controller has occurred. It stands to reason that providing fluid pressure from the pedal device to only the front axle requires the closure condition (i.e. blocking condition) for valve 130A, and that a failure of the primary controller 114B would result in a biased open condition for valve 130B, since power and control is lost to this valve. This open condition automatically connects the pedal device to the first axle brakes 102C and 102D. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the secondary controller 114A in a manner that would have kept valve 130A in the blocking condition, thus preventing fluid from the pedal device from reaching the second axle brakes and thus push fluid only to the first axle brakes.
Re-claim 2, closure of a simulator valve 126 to separate a simulator 108 in response to the error would have been obvious, as this would have prevented any diversion of fluid pressure from the pedal device to the simulator, thus providing the full amount of pressure to the first axle brakes. It is noted the simulator is associated with the first axle brake circuit.
Re-claim 6, the hydraulic pressure in the circuit using the electromechanical actuator as a function of the determined displacement, in the error-free state of at least the primary controller which includes an error-free state of the secondary controller, the brake pedal device is hydraulically separated from the circuit (see at least paragraph 13); and in response to an error of the primary controller, hydraulically connecting the brake pedal device to the circuit and separating supply of the hydraulic fluid from the second axle brakes such that the brake pedal device directly provides hydraulic pressure in the circuit and the hydraulic pressure is supplied to the first axle brakes (see at least paragraph 18). During normal operations, each of valves 130A and 130B are placed in a condition connecting actuator 108 to units 1 and 2.
Re-claim 8, the control units 114 are provided with program instructions (see paragraph 15).
Re-claims 9 and 10, the first axle is a front axle of the vehicle, and the second axle is a rear axle of the vehicle (see paragraph 10).
Claim(s) 3, 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Einig et al. as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of US 2021/0179051 A1 to Alford et al.
Re-claims 3, 5 and 7, Einig et al. fail to teach an electric parking brake for at least one of the second axle brakes, and thus in response to the error of the primary controller, actuating the electric parking brake as a function of the determined displacement of the pedal.
Alford et al. teach a second axle provided with electric parking brake actuators EPB. The EPB actuators are operated during a malfunction of at least control unit 180’ and controlled in accordance with pedal travel information (see paragraph 98 and sensor 182). This provides appropriate control of the EPB during a malfunction event, as well as any necessary or additional braking forces as requested by the driver. 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 brake system of Einig et al. with electric parking brakes at the second axle and have controlled the electric parking brakes in accordance with pedal actuation data as taught by Alford et al., thereby providing sufficient braking force for the vehicle even during a malfunction or failure event.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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. Miyazaki, Besier, Wagner and Ganzel each teach a brake system having a response to a fail condition.
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 August 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights