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 39-47 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 39 recites the limitation "the first power circuitry" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 39 recites the limitation "the second power circuitry" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 40-47 are rejected due to their dependence upon claim 39.
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.
Claim 41 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. The subject matter of instant claim 41 is recited in instant claim 39. 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) 30-32, 36-41 and 45-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2 977 282 A1 to Witte in view of DE 10 2012 020421 A1 to Witte.
Re-claim 30, Witte (EP ‘282) teaches an electronic brake system comprising:
a first hydraulic circuit associated with a first wheel brake (circuit 12, specifically circuit associated with first wheel VR);
a second hydraulic circuit associated with a second wheel brake (circuit 14, specifically circuit associated with second wheel VL);
a first parking brake EPB 2 is associated with a third wheel brake HR;
a second parking brake EPB1 is associated with a fourth wheel brake HL;
first ECU1 and second ECU2 controllers;
the first controller ECU1 is electrically coupled to the first hydraulic circuit 12 associated with the first wheel brake VR, and electrically coupled to the second parking brake EPB1 associated with the fourth wheel brake HL (see page 5 paragraphs 5 and 8 of the translation);
the second controller ECU2 is electrically coupled to the second hydraulic circuit 14 associated with the second wheel brake VL, and electrically coupled to the first parking brake EPB2 associated with the third wheel brake HR (see page 5 paragraphs 5 and 9 of the translation). However, Witte (‘282) fail to show the third wheel brake HR not fluidly coupled to the first and second hydraulic circuits, or the fourth wheel brake HL not fluidly coupled to the first and second hydraulic circuits.
Witte (DE ‘421) teach an electronic brake system having rear wheel brakes in either fluid connection with front wheel brakes (such as figure 1), or fluidly separated (such as figure 5) and thus not fluidly coupled with either the first VL or second VR hydraulic circuits. Note the fluid circuits in Witte (DE ‘421) are independent of one another, as in Witte (EP ‘282). The use of electromechanical brakes for HL and HR in Witte (DE ‘421) reduces the amount of hydraulic piping required, and allows for individual control of the rear brakes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recognized the ease of replacing the third HR and fourth HL wheel brakes of Witte (EP ‘282) with isolated electromechanical type brakes as taught by Witte (DE ‘421), as this would have simplified the overall brake apparatus by reducing hydraulic piping and weight, and would have provided for individual operation of the rear brakes separate from the hydraulic circuits.
Re-claims 31 and 40, the first controller ECU1 controls the first hydraulic circuit 12 and the second parking brake EPB1; the second controller ECU2 controls the second hydraulic circuit 14 and the first parking brake EPB2.
Re-claim 32, the first controller ECU1 is powered from a first power circuitry 52, the second controller ECU2 is powered from a second power circuitry 54, the first hydraulic circuit is powered from the first power circuitry, the second hydraulic circuit is powered from the second power circuitry, the first parking brake is powered from the second power circuitry, and the second parking brake is powered from the first power circuitry. The valves of the circuits and the parking brake assigned to the ECU is powered by the ECU circuitry, see page 6 paragraph 7 of the translation.
Re-claims 36 and 45, the first hydraulic circuit 12 comprises a first line hydraulically coupled to the first wheel brake VR and a plurality of first valves 22a/22c/22d provided on the first line, the second hydraulic circuit 14 comprises a second line hydraulically coupled to the second wheel brake VL and a plurality of second valves 26a/26c/26d provided on the second line.
Re-claims 37 and 46, the first controller ECU1 operates the first plurality of valves by opening and closing the valves as necessary, the second controller ECU2 operates the second plurality of valves by opening and closing the valves as necessary,
Re-claims 38 and 47, a communication line (internal data bus) is present between the controllers (see page 6 paragraph 1).
Re-claims 39 and 41, Witte (EP ‘282) teaches an electronic brake system comprising: first ECU1 and second ECU2 controllers, the first controller is powered from a first power circuitry 52 and the second controller powered from a second power circuitry 54; a first hydraulic circuit 12 is associated with a first wheel brake VR, the first hydraulic circuit electrically is coupled to the first controller and powered from the first power circuitry; a second hydraulic circuit 14 associated with a second wheel brake VL, the second hydraulic circuit is electrically coupled to the second controller and powered from the second power circuitry; a first parking brake EPB2 is associated with a third wheel brake HR, the first parking brake electrically coupled to the second controller ECU2 and powered from the second power circuitry 54; a second parking brake EPB1 is associated with a fourth wheel brake HL, the second parking brake electrically coupled to the first controller ECU1 and powered from the first power circuitry 52. However, Witte (‘282) fail to show the third wheel brake HR not fluidly coupled to the first and second hydraulic circuits, or the fourth wheel brake HL not fluidly coupled to the first and second hydraulic circuits.
Witte (DE ‘421) teach an electronic brake system having rear wheel brakes in either fluid connection with front wheel brakes (such as figure 1), or fluidly separated (such as figure 5) and thus not fluidly coupled with either the first VL or second VR hydraulic circuits. Note the fluid circuits in Witte (DE ‘421) are independent of one another, as in Witte (EP ‘282). The use of electromechanical brakes for HL and HR in Witte (DE ‘421) reduces the amount of hydraulic piping required, and allows for individual control of the rear brakes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recognized the ease of replacing the third HR and fourth HL wheel brakes of Witte (EP ‘282) with isolated electromechanical type brakes as taught by Witte (DE ‘421), as this would have simplified the overall brake apparatus by reducing hydraulic piping and weight, and would have provided for individual operation of the rear brakes separate from the hydraulic circuits.
Re-claim 31, the first controller ECU1 controls the first hydraulic circuit 12 and the second parking brake EPB1; the second controller ECU2 controls the second hydraulic circuit 14 and the first parking brake EPB2.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 30-47 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 and 11-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,109,991. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all that is recited in claims 30-47 is recited in claims 1-9 and 11-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,109,991.
Application Claims
U.S. Patent No. 12,109,991
Claim 30
An electronic brake system comprising: a first hydraulic circuit associated with a first wheel brake; a second hydraulic circuit associated with a second wheel brake; a first parking brake associated with a third wheel brake, wherein the third wheel brake is not fluidly coupled to the first and second hydraulic circuits; a second parking brake associated with a fourth wheel brake, wherein the fourth wheel brake is not fluidly coupled to the first and second hydraulic circuits; first and second controllers, wherein the first controller is electrically coupled to the first hydraulic circuit associated with the first wheel brake, and electrically coupled to the second parking brake associated with the fourth wheel brake; and the second controller is electrically coupled to the second hydraulic circuit associated with the second wheel brake, and electrically coupled to the first parking brake associated with the third wheel brake.
See claim 1
An electronic brake system comprising: a first hydraulic circuit associated with a first wheel brake and powered from a first power circuitry; a second hydraulic circuit associated with a second wheel brake and powered from a second power circuitry; a first hydraulic pressure sensor configured to detect a hydraulic pressure of the first hydraulic circuit and powered from the first power circuitry; a second hydraulic pressure sensor configured to detect a hydraulic pressure of the second hydraulic circuit and powered from the second power circuitry; a first parking brake associated with a third wheel brake, wherein the third wheel brake is not fluidly coupled to the first and second hydraulic circuits; a second parking brake associated with a fourth wheel brake, wherein the fourth wheel brake is not fluidly coupled to the first and second hydraulic circuits; a first pedal displacement sensor powered from the first power circuitry; a second pedal displacement sensor powered from the second power circuitry; first and second controllers electrically coupled to the first pedal displacement sensor and the second pedal displacement sensor, wherein the first controller is electrically coupled to the first hydraulic circuit associated with the first wheel brake, and electrically coupled to the second parking brake associated with the fourth wheel brake without being electrically coupled to the first parking brake associated with the third wheel brake; and the second controller is electrically coupled to the second hydraulic circuit associated with the second wheel brake, and electrically coupled to the first parking brake associated with the third wheel brake without being electrically coupled to the second parking brake associated with the fourth wheel brake.
Claim 31
See claim 2
Claim 32
See claim 3
Claim 33
See claim 4
Claim 34
See claim 5
Claim 35
See claim 6
Claim 36
See claim 7
Claim 37
See claim 8
Claim 38
See claim 9
Claim 39
An electronic brake system comprising: first and second controllers, the first controller powered from the first power circuitry and the second controller powered from the second power circuitry; a first hydraulic circuit associated with a first wheel brake, the first hydraulic circuit electrically coupled to the first controller and powered from the first power circuitry; a second hydraulic circuit associated with a second wheel brake, the second hydraulic circuit electrically coupled to the second controller and powered from the second power circuitry; a first parking brake associated with a third wheel brake, the first parking brake electrically coupled to the second controller and powered from the second power circuitry, wherein the third wheel brake is not fluidly coupled to the first and second hydraulic circuits; and a second parking brake associated with a fourth wheel brake, the second parking brake electrically coupled to the first controller and powered from the first power circuitry, wherein the fourth wheel brake is not fluidly coupled to the first and second hydraulic circuits.
See claim 11
An electronic brake system comprising: a first pedal displacement sensor powered from the first power circuitry; a second pedal displacement sensor powered from the second power circuitry; first and second controllers electrically coupled to the first pedal displacement sensor and the second pedal displacement sensor, the first controller powered from the first power circuitry and the second controller powered from the second power circuitry; a first hydraulic circuit associated with a first wheel brake, the first hydraulic circuit electrically coupled to the first controller and powered from the first power circuitry without being powered from the second power circuitry; a second hydraulic circuit associated with a second wheel brake, the second hydraulic circuit electrically coupled to the second controller and powered from the second power circuitry without being powered from the first power circuitry; a first hydraulic pressure sensor configured to detect a hydraulic pressure of the first hydraulic circuit and powered from the first power circuitry without being powered from the second power circuitry; a second hydraulic pressure sensor configured to detect a hydraulic pressure of the second hydraulic circuit and powered from the second power circuitry without being powered from the first power circuitry; a first parking brake associated with a third wheel brake, the first parking brake electrically coupled to the second controller and powered from the second power circuitry without being powered from the first power circuitry, wherein the third wheel brake is not fluidly coupled to the first and second hydraulic circuits; and a second parking brake associated with a fourth wheel brake, the second parking brake electrically coupled to the first controller and powered from the first power circuitry without being powered from the second power circuitry, wherein the fourth wheel brake is not fluidly coupled to the first and second hydraulic circuits.
Claim 40
See claim 12
Claim 41
See claims 11 and 13
Claim 42
See claim 14
Claim 43
See claim 15
Claim 44
See claim 16
Claim 45
See claim 17
Claim 46
See claim 18
Claim 47
See claim 19
An obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but an examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 30-47 are generic to all that is recited in claims 1-9 and 11-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,109,991. As such claims 1-9 and 9-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,109,991 fully encompasses the subject matter of claims 30-47 and therefore anticipates claims 30-47. Thus the invention of claims 1-9 and 11-19 of the patent is in effect a "species” of the “generic” invention of claims 30-47. It has been held that the generic invention is anticipated by the species, see In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since claims 30-47 are anticipated (fully encompassed) by claims 1-9 and 11-19 of the patent, claims 30-47 are not patentably distinct from claims 1-9 and 11-19, regardless of any additional subject matter present in claims 1-9 and 11-19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Campau, Riddiford, Yokoyama, Reuter and Iwasaki each teach hydraulically isolated rear brakes.
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 September 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights