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 .
The Amendment filed June 22, 2026 has been entered. No new matter has been added.
The previous Objection to the Drawings has been withdrawn in light of the Amendment.
Claims 1 – 30 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) recites a method for determining or estimating a brake pressure in accordance to a second brake pressure when no signal is received from the first wheel sensor. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the controller of the vehicle is claimed to only determine the first and second brake pressure according to conditions, e.g. sensor failure. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no further control of the vehicle or component of the vehicle is included in the claim limitations.
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.
(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 – 6, 10 – 20, 24 – 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dieckmann et al. (US 2023/0087332).
Regarding Claim 1:
Dieckmann et al. teaches a method for determining or estimating a first brake pressure (via 11, 102) for a first of a brake actuator (3a), which is included by a pressure-medium-actuated brake device (via 26, 20, Fig 2), of at least a first wheel (5a) on which during a braking operation and/or while implementing a control which processes wheel speed signals a build-up of brake pressure is required (see abstract, paragraphs 0003, 0011), and a first wheel speed sensor (14a) is provided but does not provide any or any error-free first wheel speed signal (paragraph 0011), wherein the method comprises at least the following steps: a) identifying a failure of the first wheel speed signal or an error in the first wheel speed signal; b) determining, measuring or estimating during the braking operation and/or while the control is carried out a second brake pressure for a second brake actuator (3b), which is included by the brake device, of at least one second wheel (5b) with which there is associated a second wheel speed sensor (14b) which provides a wheel speed signal; and b) determining or estimating the first brake pressure in accordance with the second brake pressure, when a failure of the first wheel speed signal or an error in the first wheel speed signal has been identified. (paragraph 0011 and via bus 120 through controller 102).
Regarding Claim 2:
Dieckmann et al. teaches the control comprises a) a travel dynamic control with a subordinate anti-lock brake control function and/or traction control function and/or roll-over protection function; and/or b) an anti-lock braking control (paragraphs 0025, 0044) and/or c) a traction control system (Fig 2).
Regarding Claim 3:
Dieckmann et al. teaches in that a selection is made from the wheels of the vehicle in order to identify at least one second wheel which is suitable for the determination or estimation of the first brake pressure for the first brake actuator of the at least one first wheel (paragraph 0011).
Regarding Claim 4:
Dieckmann et al. teaches in that a wheel which is arranged on the same axle as the first wheel is used as the second wheel (paragraph 0011).
Regarding Claim 5:
Dieckmann et al. teaches in that a wheel which is arranged on a different axle with respect to an axle on which the at least one first wheel is arranged is used as the second wheel (Fig 2, paragraph 0011).
Regarding Claim 6:
Dieckmann et al. teaches in that a wheel which with respect to the vehicle side of the at least one first wheel is arranged a) at the same vehicle side, or b) at the other vehicle side is used as the second wheel (Fig 2, paragraph 0011).
Regarding Claim 10:
Dieckmann et al. teaches in that a determination or estimation of axle loads of the axles and/or an axle load distribution of the axles is carried out (paragraph 0024).
Regarding Claim 11:
Dieckmann et al. teaches in that the determination or estimation of the first brake pressure is also carried out in accordance with the determined or estimated axle loads or the determined or estimated axle load distribution (paragraph 0024).
Regarding Claim 12:
Dieckmann et al. teaches in that a wheel which is arranged on a different axle with respect to an axle on which the at least one first wheel is arranged is used as the second wheel but is arranged at the same vehicle side as the at least one first wheel, and in that the determination or estimation of the first brake pressure is also carried out in accordance with the determined or estimated axle loads or the determined or estimated axle load distribution (Fig 2, paragraphs 0011, 0024).
Regarding Claim 13:
Dieckmann et al. teaches a computer program stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising having a program code for carrying out the method as in claim 1 when the computer program is carried out on a processor device (via 102, 110, 104).
Regarding Claim 14:
Dieckmann et al. teaches A control device comprising: a processor device; and a non-transitory computer readable medium store which contains the computer program as in claim 13 (via 102, 110, 104).
Regarding Claim 15:
See rejection of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 16:
See rejection of Claim 2 above.
Regarding Claim 17:
See rejection of Claim 3 above.
Regarding Claim 18:
See rejection of Claim 4 above.
Regarding Claim 19:
See rejection of Claim 5 above.
Regarding Claim 20:
See rejection of Claim 6 above.
Regarding Claim 24:
See rejection of Claim 10 above.
Regarding Claim 25:
See rejection of Claim 11 above.
Regarding Claim 26:
See rejection of Claim 12 above.
Regarding Claim 27:
Dieckmann et al. teaches in that the brake device is an electro-pneumatic brake device having brake pressure regulation (see abstract).
Regarding Claim 28:
Dieckmann et al. teaches in that the control is implemented in at least one control device or a control device system of the brake device (Fig 2).
Regarding Claim 29:
Dieckmann et al. teaches in that a primary control device and a secondary control device are provided, wherein the control is implemented in the primary control device and/or in the secondary control device (Fig 2).
Regarding Claim 30:
Dieckmann et al. teaches in that at least some of the wheel speed sensors are connected to the primary control device and/or to the secondary control device in order to transmit wheel speed signals (Fig 2).
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.
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(s) 7 – 9, 21 – 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dieckmann et al. (US 2023/0087332) and in view of Woerner et al. (US 2012/0299368).
Regarding Claim 7:
Dieckmann et al. is silent to in that a μ-split identification in order to identify a μ-split situation is carried out during the braking operation and/or when the control is carried out.
However, Woerner et al. teaches a similar braking control system having a μ-split identification in order to identify a μ-split situation is carried out during the braking operation and/or when the control is carried out (paragraph 0022).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the μ-split identification of Woerner et al. in the system of Dieckmann et al. in order to provide synchronized control of the wheels.
Regarding Claim 8:
Dieckmann et al. is silent to in that the determination or estimation of the first brake pressure is also carried out in accordance with an identified μ-split situation.
However, Woerner et al. teaches in that the determination or estimation of the first brake pressure is also carried out in accordance with an identified μ-split situation (paragraph 0022).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the μ-split identification of Woerner et al. in the system of Dieckmann et al. in order to provide synchronized control of the wheels.
Regarding Claim 9:
Dieckmann et al. is silent to in that a) a wheel which is arranged on the same axle as the at least one first wheel is used as the second wheel, and in that b) the determination or estimation of the first brake pressure is also carried out in accordance with an identified μ-split situation.
However, Woerner et al. teaches in that a) a wheel which is arranged on the same axle as the at least one first wheel is used as the second wheel, and in that b) the determination or estimation of the first brake pressure is also carried out in accordance with an identified μ-split situation (paragraph 0022).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the μ-split identification of Woerner et al. in the system of Dieckmann et al. in order to provide synchronized control of the wheels.
Regarding Claim 21:
See rejection of Claim 7 above.
Regarding Claim 22:
See rejection of Claim 8 above.
Regarding Claim 23:
See rejection of Claim 9 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Page 8 of the Remarks, the Applicant argues that the 35 USC 101 Rejection is not appropriate and that the limitation “while implementing a control which processes wheel speed signals” rectifies the requirements under 35 USC 101. The Examiner disagrees maintains the rejection. The controller as claimed is in the preamble of the claim and not referenced further, which there is not given patentable weight. In addition, this particular limitation follows an “and/or” clause, which makes this limitation optional and further deems the Applicant’s argument to be moot.
On Page 9 of the Remarks, the Applicant argues that Dieckmann does not teach the limitation requiring “a failure of the first wheel speed signal or an error in the first wheel speed signal.” The Examiner disagrees maintains the rejection. Dieckmenn teaches in paragraphs 0005, 0006, and 0011 and via control unit 102 with bus 120, that faulty components of the vehicle that include and not limited to, wheel speed sensors, are determined via the communication bus 120 (signals) and processes and controller via control unit 102.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 LONG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1899. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/LONG T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights