DETAILED ACTION
This non-final action is in response to the application filed 27 January 2025.
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
Claims 13-24 are pending, claims 1-12 having been canceled by the preliminary amendment, dated 27 January 2025. The aforementioned claims claim domestic benefit/National state priority to PCT/EP2023/073383, filed 25 August 2023, and claim foreign priority to British Patent Application Number GB 2212942.3, filed 5 September 2022.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 27 January 2025 complies with 37 C.F.R. 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the examiner. An initialed copy of the 1449 form is enclosed herewith.
Drawings
The drawings, filed 27 January 2025, are accepted by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 13 recites “trailer brake module” (ln. 3). It is unclear whether this recitation is the same or different from the previous recitation (ln. 2).
Claim 13 further recites “sensors” (ln. 7). It is unclear whether this recitation is the same or different from the previous recitation (ln, 5).
Claim 13 still further recites second ECU” (ln. 5-6). It is unclear whether this recitation is the same or different from the previous recitation (ln. 5).
Claim 13 still further recites “a pressure” (Ln. 9). It is unclear whether this recitation is the same or different from the previous recitation (Ln. 2).
Claim 21 recites “the valve”. It is unclear whether this is the first or second valve, or some other valve.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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) 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) 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) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation are: “a trailer braking module for controlling pressure” in claim 13.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The specification at [0023] discloses an electropneumatic brake pressure control module 13 (trailer brake module or EBS module) which is primarily assigned to the rear axle brakes. Further paragraph [0027] discloses that the pressure control module 13 has an integrated pressure sensor ... which measures the pressure in the pneumatic control line 38, that is, the control pressure present at the pneumatic control input 36 of the ABS valve, which control pressure is identical to the maximal pressure which can be controlled into the brake cylinders 18, 19 (see also [0033]; [0037]). Thus, the trailer braking module is being interpreted as an electropneumatic pressure control module.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 13-19, 21, 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0340111 to Fry in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2024/0042974 to Subramanian (hereafter S).
As per claim 13, Fry discloses [a] method of controlling brake pressures in a trailer vehicle braking system (see at least Fry, Abstract, disclosing A brake system for a trailer has first and second pneumatic circuits for supplying air pressure to the wheel ends on the trailer; [0012] disclosing a method of operating the brakes on a trailer), which braking system comprises
a trailer brake module for controlling pressures to generate a braking force on a wheel or wheels on the trailer (see at least Fry, Fig. 1 showing the primary trailer brake module 6 with ECU 17; [0028] disclosing that the trailer is provided with three axles having a respective brake 33-38 on each wheel end),
which trailer brake module is adapted to receive data inputs from sensors on the trailer (see at least Fry, [0028] disclosing a wheel speed sensor is associated with each wheel end, the output of which for axle 1 is passed to the main ECU 7, axles 2 and 3 are passed to the primary trailer brake module ECU 17) and
a control pressure from a towing vehicle in a control line (see at least Fry, [0024] disclosing a second pneumatic connection 8 for control (yellow line), which is connected to the primary trailer brake module),
wherein the braking system comprises a second ECU (see at least Fry, [0024] main ECU 7),
which second ECU is configured to receive sensor inputs from sensors on the trailer and is configured to communicate with the trailer brake module (see at least Fry, [0028] disclosing a wheel speed sensor is associated with each wheel end, the output of which for axle 1 is passed to the main ECU 7, axles 2 and 3 are passed to the primary trailer brake module ECU 17) and
to communicate with the towing vehicle (see at least Fry, Fig. 1 showing COM BUS1, 15 and COM BU2, 16, connecting ECU7 and ECU 17; [0024] disclosing that the main ECU 7 additionally provides first and second local communication circuits 15, 16 and is the gateway between the local buses and first and second communication buses), the method comprising:
determining, by the second ECU (see at least Fry, "main ECU" 7 ),
whether a pressure should be increased or decreased (see at least Fry, after [0031], Table 1, disclosing the main ECU requests brake pressure via the communication bus to the towing vehicle and the TCM on the towing vehicle provides brake pressure on the control line ; [0033] disclosing that the pressure control valve assembly and the selector valve 40 are electrically controlled via the main ECU) ... . But, Fry does not explicitly teach the following limitation taught in S:
controlling, by the second ECU, an input pressure to the trailer brake module and/or brake pressure or pressures on an output side of the trailer brake module (see at least S, [0059] disclosing that the respective one or more brake control units 12 may be arranged to control the trailer brakes 10, e.g., by applying a respective brake pressure to the respective trailer brakes 10. In some examples, there is a pneumatic control pressure line from the tractor 2 to all trailers in the one or more trailers 3, one by one. The control line pressure on the tractor 2 may have a pressure control valve which may modulate the brake pressures for each respective trailer in the one or more trailers 3).
Fry and S are analogous art to claim 13 because they are in the same field directed to trailer vehicles and control systems. Fry relates to a towed vehicle such as a three axle semi-trailer or full trailer (see Fry, [0001]). S relates to braking trailers in a tractor-trailer combination (see S, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, as disclosed in Fry, to provide the benefit of controlling, by the second ECU, an input pressure to the trailer brake module and/or brake pressure or pressures on an output side of the trailer brake module, as disclosed in S, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving the manner in which trailer brakes are applied during a braking operation in a tractor-trailer combination (see S, [0007]).
As per claim 14, the combination of Fry and S discloses all of the limitations of claim 13, as shown above. Fry further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the control line is provided with a pressure control valve controllable by the second ECU (see at least Fry, [0039] disclosing that the pressure control valve assembly is electrically controlled via the main ECU 7) ... . S further discloses the following limitation:
said pressure control valve being adapted to reduce the control pressure towards the trailer brake module (see at least S, [0113] disclosing that when ABS is present in the one or more trailers 3 or there is an increased presence of ABS in the one or more trailers, the established maximum continuous brake pressure can be decreased).
As per claim 15, the combination of Fry and S discloses all of the limitations of claim 14, as shown above. Fry further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the brake system is provided with a further valve (see at least Fry, [0029] with regard to Fig. 1, Control of the flow of air to the wheel ends via a first pressure control valve assembly 41,42 for the front axle and a second pressure control valve assembly 43, 44 for each side of the two rear axles. Each of these pressure control valve assemblies is a combination of two 2/2 solenoid valves, one of which is normally open and the other normal closed (which connects out to exhaust). The pressure control valve assembly is electrically controlled via the main ECU 7; [0030] disclosing that FIG. 2 shows a similar arrangement to FIG. 1 but having one pressure control valve assembly 41-46 per wheel end),
said further valve being pneumatically connected to the main supply pressure as well as the control line (see at least Fry, [0025] disclosing that the ECU 7 is operatively connected to the selector 5 to provide the necessary control signals) ... . S further discloses the following limitation:
and being operable by the second ECU such that the further valve can increase the control pressure to the trailer brake module (see at least S, [0036] disclosing that the brake ECU is arranged to control application of the trailer brakes of the one or more trailers continuously at brake pressures up to the established maximum continuous brake pressure and by pulsing according to the established on-off cycling frequency at brake pressures above the established maximum continuous brake pressure).
As per claim 16, the combination of Fry and S discloses all of the limitations of claim 13, as shown above. Fry further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the brake system comprises a single channel electropneumatic module which has a pneumatic connection to the main supply pressure line and can control the pressure in the control line towards the trailer brake module (see at least Fry, [0041] disclosing that secondary brake module 52 is a one channel electropneumatic module comprises a 3/2 solenoid valve arrangement 48 and relay valve 49 that receives an input from the redline connection via selector valve 40 and provides an output back to the selector valve 40. This enables the secondary brake module to replace one of the channels of the trailer brake module 6 in the event of failure ; [0043] disclosing that together with an additional pressure modulator the selection valve is also expanded with an additional 3/2 valve. This additional valve selects the input source for the secondary pressure modulator so that it can be supplied from either circuit 1 or 2).
As per claim 17, the combination of Fry and S discloses all of the limitations of claim 13, as shown above. Fry further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the brake system is provided with first and second valves (see at least Fry, [0029] disclosing that the control of the flow of air to the wheel ends via a first pressure control valve assembly 41,42 for the front axle and a second pressure control valve assembly 43, 44 <interpreted as the first and second valves> for each side of the two rear axles.),
each of said first and second valves being associated with a braking channel to a respective wheel of the trailer (see at least Fry, [0029]),
wherein each valve is pneumatically controlled by the trailer brake module and electrically controlled by the second ECU (see at least Fry, [0033] disclosing that the he pneumatic output of the trailer brake module is fed to a selector valve 40. The selector valve controls the flow of air to the wheel ends via a respective pressure control valve assembly 41-46. Each of these is a combination of two 2/2 solenoid valves, one of which is normally open and the other normal closed (which connects out to exhaust). The pressure control valve assembly and the selector valve 40 are electrically controlled via the main ECU 7) ... . S further discloses the following limitations:
and is adapted to decrease the pressure supplied to the wheel (see at least S, [0113]).
As per claim 18, the combination of Fry and S discloses all of the limitations of claim 17, as shown above. Fry further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the brake system is provided with third and fourth valves (see at least Fry, [0030] disclosing that FIG. 2 shows a similar arrangement to FIG. 1 but having one pressure control valve assembly 41-46 per wheel end),
each of said third and fourth valves being associated with a braking channel to a respective wheel of the trailer (see at least Fry, [0030] ),
wherein each valve is pneumatically connected to the main supply pressure as well as the brake delivery line (see at least Fry, [0033]) ... . S further disclose the following limitation:
and is operable by the second ECU and is adapted to increase the pressure supplied to the first and second valve (see at least S, [0036]).
As per claim 19, the combination of Fry and S discloses all of the limitations in claim 17, as shown above. Fry further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the first and second valves are relay valves (see at least Fry, [0026] disclosing that primary trailer brake module 6 receives the first and second pneumatic inputs from the first and second reservoirs, which inputs are connected to a respective relay valve 18,19 and a respective 2/2 solenoid load valve 20,21; [0041] disclosing that the secondary brake module 52 is a one channel electropneumatic module comprises a 3/2 solenoid valve arrangement 48 and relay valve 49 that receives an input from the redline connection via selector valve 40 and provides an output back to the selector valve 40).
As per claim 21, the combination of Fry and S discloses all of the limitations of claim 17, as shown above. Fry further discloses the following limitation:
wherein a select high valve is provided in each channel from the trailer brake module to the valve (see at least Fry,] [0039] disclosing that FIG. 4 shows a selection valve 40 and a secondary pressure modulator. In this case the pneumatic output of the trailer brake module is again fed to a selector valve 40, which also receives inputs from each of the first and second reservoirs. The selector valve controls the flow of air to the wheel ends via a respective pressure control valve assembly 41-46. Each of these is a combination of two 2/2 solenoid valves, one of which is normally open and the other normal closed (which connects out to exhaust). The pressure control valve assembly is electrically controlled via the main ECU 7; [0041] disclosing that the secondary brake module 52 is a one channel electropneumatic module comprises a 3/2 solenoid valve arrangement 48 and relay valve 49 that receives an input from the redline connection via selector valve 40 and provides an output back to the selector valve 40).
As per claim 22, the combination of Fry and S discloses all of the limitations of claim 21, as shown above. Fry further discloses the following limitation:
wherein a further 3/2 valve is provided in each channel from the trailer brake module in the control line input for the select high valves, with each 3/2 valve providing a pneumatic control connection to the valves (see at least Fry, [0043] disclosing that the introduction of a secondary pressure modulator aims to improve performance of the system even further. Together with an additional pressure modulator the selection valve is also expanded with an additional 3/2 valve. This additional valve selects the input source for the secondary pressure modulator so that it can be supplied from either circuit 1 or 2)
As per claim 24, the combination of Fry and S discloses all of the limitations of claim 13, as shown above. Fry further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the second ECU is provided with an electrical power supply (see at least Fry, [0024] disclosing that first and second electrical connections 9, 10 supply power to the main electronic control unit (ECU) 7),
said electrical power supply being independent of a power supply for the trailer brake module (see at least Fry, Fig. 1, showing first and second electrical connections outside of the trailer brake module < outside the dashed boundary, interpreted as being independent of the power supply for the trailer brake>).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fry and S as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0001841 to Green et al. (hereafter Green).
As per claim 20, the combination of Fry and S discloses all of the limitations of claim 14, as shown above. But, neither Fry nor S explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Green.
wherein a pressure transducer is provided to measure pressure output of the valve to the wheels to provide an electrical signal to the second ECU (see at least Green, [0022] disclosing that the tractor braking section 202 also includes a trailer brake valve 218 coupled to the master cylinder 206 via a pilot brake line 213 for piloting the tractor break pressure to the trailer break valve 218 and the ECU 107 configured to receive a brake signal from the brake pedal 110 of the tractor 102 that is representative of the tractor brake pressure applied to the tractor brake 210 for braking the tractor wheel 216. In one embodiment of the invention, the brake signal is an electrical signal generated by a transducer (not shown), such as an electromechanical sensor coupled between the mechanical linkage 208 of the brake pedal 110 and the ECU 107).
Fry, S and Green are analogous art to claim 20 because they are in the same field directed to trailer vehicles and control systems. Fry relates to a towed vehicle such as a three axle semi-trailer or full trailer (see Fry, [0001]). S relates to braking trailers in a tractor-trailer combination (see S, [0002]). Green relates to systems and methods for braking tractor-trailer assemblies (see Green, [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, as disclosed in Fry, as modified by S, to provide the benefit of having a pressure transducer measures pressure output of the valve to the wheels to provide an electrical signal to the second ECU, as disclosed in Green, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of optimizing the braking performance to improve motional stability under braking (see Green, [0001]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fry and S as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0359018 to Brickley et al. (hereafter Brickley).
As per claim 23, the combination of Fry and S discloses all of the limitations of claim 13, as shown above. Fry further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the second ECU is provided with a communication channel to the towed vehicle (see at least Fry, Fig. 1 showing COM BUS1, 15 and COM BU2, 16, connecting ECU7 and ECU 17; [0024] The main ECU 7 additionally provides first and second local communication circuits 15, 16 and is the gateway between the local buses and first and second communication buses) ... . But, neither Fry nor S explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Brinkley:
said communication channel being independent of communication channels from the trailer brake module to the towed vehicle (see at least Brinkley, [1291] disclosing that the brake controller has been configured to collect data and communicate data to a smartphone via a wireless Bluetooth connection as illustrated by the various screenshots of FIG. 8 and Attachment A. Attachment A accompanies this application and illustrates various data inputs that may be collected from the brake controller module 110E to a display 102 such as a smartphone or other application on a mobile device).
Fry, S and Brinkley are analogous art to claim 23 because they are in the same field directed to trailer vehicles and control systems. Fry relates to a towed vehicle such as a three axle semi-trailer or full trailer (see Fry, [0001]). S relates to braking trailers in a tractor-trailer combination (see S, [0002]). Brinkley relates to an active system for sensing and responding to data collected by any number of devices associated with a vehicle, for purposes such as towing, brake control, additional cargo carrying, safety systems (see at least Brinkley, [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, as disclosed in Fry, as modified by S, to provide the benefit of having the communication channel be independent of communication channels from the trailer brake module to the towed vehicle, as disclosed in Brinkley, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of communicating to enhance decisions and verify information regarding the functions (see Brinkley, [0007]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M. BRADY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7458. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 am - 4;30 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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
PATRICK M. BRADY III
Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/PATRICK M BRADY/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
