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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 11, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the Taneyhill reference (US Patent No. 9,434,366).
6. Regarding claim 1, the Taneyhill reference discloses:
a system (FIG. 1) for controlling a parking brake in a vehicle (Title), comprising:
a first electropneumatic valve module (20, 60) disposed between a fluid source (34) and a wheel brake on the vehicle (50), the first electropneumatic valve module (20, 60) including a first solenoid (60) movable between a first solenoid delivery state (60—closed) allowing fluid flow from a supply port (FIG. 1—where (32) connects to (20)) on the first electropneumatic valve module (20, 60) to a delivery port (FIG. 1—where (52) connects to (20)) on the first electropneumatic valve module (20, 60) and a first solenoid exhaust state (60—open) allowing fluid flow from the delivery port on the first electropneumatic valve module (20, 60) to an exhaust port on the first electropneumatic valve module (65);
a second electropneumatic valve module (Column 3, lines 17-19) disposed between the fluid source (34) and the wheel brake (50), the second electropneumatic valve module including a second solenoid movable between a second solenoid delivery state allowing fluid flow from a supply port on the second electropneumatic valve module to a delivery port on the second electropneumatic valve module and a second solenoid exhaust state allowing fluid flow from the delivery port on the second electropneumatic valve module to an exhaust port on the second electropneumatic valve module (implicit in explicit disclosure of “known” electropneumatic valves since this is just a repeat of the first valve which as shown above is known);
a brake controller (40) configured to transmit a first control signal to the first solenoid (Column 5, lines 43-49), the first control signal configured to position the first solenoid in one of the first solenoid delivery state and the first solenoid exhaust state (Column 5, lines 43-49—exhaust air pressure); and,
a secondary control circuit (40—controller implicitly has circuitry to operate solenoid and valve and therefore can be considered secondary) configured to generate, responsive to a first feedback signal from the first electropneumatic valve module indicative of whether the first solenoid is in the first solenoid delivery state or the first solenoid exhaust state, a second control signal, the second control signal configured to position the second solenoid in one of the second solenoid delivery state and the second solenoid exhaust state (Column 3, lines 11-24—feedback signal is the trip pressure which indicates exhaust and since a second valve is known a second control signal would be necessary to allow further venting an application of brakes).
7. Regarding claim 10, the Taneyhill reference further discloses:
whether the first solenoid (60) is in the first solenoid delivery state or the first solenoid exhaust state responsive to the first feedback signal (Column 3, lines 11-24—feedback signal is the trip pressure which indicates exhaust) and to determine whether the second solenoid is in the second solenoid delivery state or the second solenoid exhaust state responsive to a second feedback signal from the second electropneumatic valve module (Column 3, lines 11-24—second feedback signal is the pressure which indicates full exhaust and since a second valve is known a second control signal would be necessary to allow full venting an application of brakes) indicative of whether the second solenoid is in the second solenoid delivery state or the second solenoid exhaust state.
8. Regarding claim 11, the Taneyhill reference discloses:
a system (FIG. 1) for controlling a parking brake in a vehicle (Title), comprising:
a first electropneumatic valve module (20, 60) disposed between a fluid source (34) and a wheel brake on the vehicle (50), the first electropneumatic valve module (20, 60) including a first solenoid (60) movable between a first solenoid delivery state (60-closed) allowing fluid flow from a supply port (FIG. 1—where (32) connects to (20)) on the first electropneumatic valve module (20, 60) to a delivery port (FIG. 1—where (52) connects to (20)) on the first electropneumatic valve module (20, 60) and a first solenoid exhaust state (60—open) allowing fluid flow from the delivery port on the first electropneumatic valve module to an exhaust port (65) on the first electropneumatic valve module (20, 60);
a second electropneumatic valve module (Column 3, lines 17-19) disposed between the fluid source (34) and the wheel brake (50), the second electropneumatic valve module including a second solenoid movable between a second solenoid delivery state allowing fluid flow from a supply port on the second electropneumatic valve module to a delivery port on the second electropneumatic valve module and a second solenoid exhaust state allowing fluid flow from the delivery port on the second electropneumatic valve module to an exhaust port on the second electropneumatic valve module (implicit in explicit disclosure of “known” electropneumatic valves since this is just a repeat of the first valve which as shown above is known);
a brake controller (40) configured to transmit a first control signal to the first solenoid (Column 5, lines 43-49), the first control signal configured to position the first solenoid in one of the first solenoid delivery state and the first solenoid exhaust state (Column 5, lines 43-49—exhaust air pressure); and,
means for generating (40—controller implicitly has circuitry to operate solenoid and valve), responsive to a first feedback signal from the first electropneumatic valve module indicative of whether the first solenoid is in the first solenoid delivery state or the first solenoid exhaust state, a second control signal, the second control signal configured to position the second solenoid in one of the second solenoid delivery state and the second solenoid exhaust state (Column 3, lines 11-24—feedback signal is the trip pressure which indicates exhaust and
since a second valve is known a second control signal would be necessary to allow further venting an application of brakes).
9. Regarding claim 20, the Taneyhill reference further discloses:
wherein the brake controller (40) is configured to determine whether the first solenoid (60) is in the first solenoid delivery state or the first solenoid exhaust state
responsive to the first feedback signal (Column 3, lines 11-24—feedback signal is the trip pressure which indicates exhaust) and to determine whether the second solenoid is in the
second solenoid delivery state or the second solenoid exhaust state responsive to a second
feedback signal from the second electropneumatic valve module (Column 3, lines 11-24—second feedback signal is the pressure which indicates full exhaust and since a second valve is known a second control signal would be necessary to allow full venting an application of brakes) indicative of whether the second solenoid is in the second solenoid delivery state or the second solenoid exhaust state.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. Claim(s) 2-3 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Taneyhill reference..
12. Regarding claim 2, the Taneyhill reference fails to disclose:
wherein the supply port of the second electropneumatic valve module is in fluid communication with the fluid source, the delivery port of the second electropneumatic valve module is in fluid communication with the supply port of the first electropneumatic valve module and the delivery port of the first electropneumatic valve module is in fluid communication with the wheel brake.
This would be obvious to try. There are a finite number of connections between the two valves, the fluid source and the wheel brake therefore the combinations are finite. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a variety of connections could be made but such variety would be finite and it would be obvious to try the various connections to develop an optimal configuration.
13. Regarding claim 3, the Taneyhill reference fails to disclose:
wherein the supply port of the first electropneumatic valve module and the supply port of the second electropneumatic valve module are both in fluid communication with the fluid source and the delivery port of the first electropneumatic valve module and the delivery port of the second electropneumatic valve module are both in fluid communication with the wheel brake.
This would be obvious to try. There are a finite number of connections between the two valves, the fluid source and the wheel brake therefore the combinations are finite. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a variety of connections could be made but such variety would be finite and it would be obvious to try the various connections to develop an optimal configuration.
14. Regarding claim 12, the Taneyhill reference fails to disclose:
wherein the supply port of the second electropneumatic valve module is in fluid communication with the fluid source, the delivery port of the second electropneumatic valve module is in fluid communication with the supply port of the first electropneumatic valve module and the delivery port of the first electropneumatic valve module is in fluid communication with the wheel brake.
This would be obvious to try. There are a finite number of connections between the two valves, the fluid source and the wheel brake therefore the combinations are finite. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a variety of connections could be made but such variety would be finite and it would be obvious to try the various connections to develop an optimal configuration.
15. Regarding claim 13, the Taneyhill reference fails to disclose:
wherein the supply port of the first electropneumatic valve module and the supply port of the second electropneumatic valve module are both in fluid communication with the fluid source and the delivery port of the first electropneumatic valve module and the delivery port of the second electropneumatic valve module are both in fluid communication with the wheel brake.
This would be obvious to try. There are a finite number of connections between the two valves, the fluid source and the wheel brake therefore the combinations are finite. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a variety of connections could be made but such variety would be finite and it would be obvious to try the various connections to develop an optimal configuration.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9, 14-19, and 21 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 1, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues (1) that the claim language “first solenoid delivery state allowing fluid flow from a supply port on the first electropneumatic valve module to a delivery port on the first electropneumatic valve module” is not disclosed (2) second electropneumatic module is not disclosed and (3) a secondary control circuit configured to generate. The Office traverses and will discuss each in turn.
Concerning number (1), (FIG. 1) shows that fluid flows from 32 and 36 into the valve 20 and when the valve 20 opens there would be at least some air left in the lines 32 and 36 and whether 60 was open would affect that flow. Accordingly, this argument fails. Concerning number (2) Applicant itself cite that the prior art discloses “Additional . . . and electropneumatic valves,” which is a “second electropneumatic valve module.” And finally, for (3) the Applicant admits this interpretation and application is appropriate as shown by its need to add claim 21 to the claimset. Accordingly, all pending claims are finally rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES J BRAUCH whose telephone number is (313)446-6511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM to 6 PM.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571) 272-1196. 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.
/CHARLES JOSEPH BRAUCH/
Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/LONG T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights