DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in figure 2 it is unclear what some of the features are since they have not been labeled or (as best understood) discussed in the specification.
For instance what do the square boxes in the areas of numerals 1 and 25 represent (they appear to be batteries). Also what do the four boxes surrounding each of the control units 14 and 24 represent? This should be clarified by amending the drawings and the specification for increased clarity should the device mature into a patent.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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- is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besier U.S. 2021/0053540 in view of Linhoff et al. U.S. 2011/0168502.
Regarding claim 1 Besier shows in figures 1-4: A Brake system (2) for a vehicle, comprising a first hydraulic circuit (I) including a first wheel brake (4), a second hydraulic circuit (II) including a second wheel brake (8), a first hydraulic pressure supplier (14) including an actuator 60 for pressurizing the first hydraulic circuit (I), a second hydraulic pressure supplier (16) including an actuator 60 for pressurizing the second hydraulic circuit (II) , a first control unit (18) for activating the first hydraulic pressure supplier (14) and (as best understood from paras 0014-0015) the second hydraulic pressure supplier (16) and for controlling the first and second brake assemblies dependent upon a braking request, and a second control unit (20) for activating the first hydraulic pressure supplier (14) and the second hydraulic pressure supplier (16) and each of the brake assemblies depending on a brake request.
However it may be said that Besier does not explicitly state that the first and second control units (18,20) can each control both the first and second hydraulic pressure suppliers 14,16 in the event of failure of either of the control units (18,20).
Also lacking is a specific description showing that electromagnetic/electromechanical brakes can also be use in the brake system in addition to hydraulically actuated wheel brakes.
Nevertheless as stated in paras 0014-0015 this appears to be the case. For instance in para 0014 Besier states:
[0014] /t has now been found that this requirement can be fulfilled in that firstly, the electrical and hydraulic independence of the two brake circuits is systematically implemented, and secondly a control of hydraulic components of the two brake circuits by the still functioning components is possible. Via the data interface, each of the two control and regulating units can determine the state of the other unit, and on failure react accordingly and take over the supply to the failed brake circuit.
In para 0015 Besier states:
[0015] The braking system may thus perform active braking processes as long as at least one of the two brake circuits remains intact. A brake circuit is described as not intact if its control and regulating unit and/or pressure supply unit has failed, in particular if there is a malfunction in the electrical components.
Therefore due to the interface 160 connecting the ECU1 18 to the ECU2 20 one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would realize that one of the ECU'S 1,2 could take over the functioning of the other ECU upon a malfunction/failure of said other ECU and actuate both pressure suppliers 14,16 (if both are still functioning) simply for redundancy, safety, and as a matter of optimal desired functioning of the brake system.
Also it is a notoriously well known idea in the art to use electromechanically brakes simply as a matter of increased braking efficiency/power desired for a specific vehicle and/or application (i.e. such as parking brake). See Linhoff et al. claim 17. Although not applied see also Mannherze et al. U.S. 2018/0148023 figure 2.
Accordingly it would have been obvious to one having ordinary in the art to have used both hydraulic and electromagnetic brakes at certain axles on a specific vehicle in the brake system of Besier, for the reasons above. If one of the first or second control units 18,20 were to fail, due to the connection interface at 160 and in light of the discussion in paragraphs 0014-0015 the other of the control units would be capable of controlling the first and second electromagnetic brakes in Besier, as modified above.
Regarding claim 3, as broadly claimed, Besier as modified above describes in the specification that one of the first control unit and the second control unit is configured to take over the functions of the other one of the control units if it is detected that the other control unit has a malfunction and/or in case of a power failure.
Regarding claim 4, as broadly claimed, Besier as modified above describes in the specification a cut-off valve (152,262 or 154,262) hydraulically connecting the first and second hydraulic circuits in an emergency mode and hydraulically separating the first and second hydraulic circuits in a normal operating mode, wherein the first control unit and/or second control unit are configured for keeping the cut-off valve closed in the normal operation mode and to open the cut-off valve in the emergency mode, wherein the first hydraulic pressure supplier is hydraulically connected to both the first hydraulic circuit and the second hydraulic circuit for pressurizing the hydraulic circuits in the emergency mode, or wherein the second hydraulic pressure supplier is hydraulically connected to both the first hydraulic circuit and the second hydraulic circuit for pressurizing said hydraulic circuits in the emergency mode.
Regarding claim 5, as broadly claimed, Besier as modified above shows in the drawings and describes in the specification the cut-off valve is a normally open valve (see fig 3).
Regarding claim 6, as broadly claimed, Besier as modified above describes in the specification the cut-off valve is a solenoid valve.
Regarding claim 7, as broadly claimed, Besier as modified above describes in the specification that the first control unit and the second control unit are communicatively connected to each other.
Regarding claim 8, as broadly claimed, it would have been obvious to have made the first control unit and the second control unit with a symmetric design simply for functionality and less expense due to lower complexity of design.
Regarding claim 9 Besier shows a reservoir 200 hydraulically connected to at least one of the first and second hydraulic circuits for storing a brake fluid, and a second cut-off valve (154,224,262) arranged between the reservoir and at least one of the first and second brake circuits, wherein the first and second control units are configured to close the second cut-off valve during a brake action and open the second cut-off valve in a rest condition. Note that Besier seems to indicate that certain components in one in embodiment could be used in conjunction with the components of another embodiment simply due the similarity in design and intended function of the brake system—as would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art—dependent upon a specific vehicle and/or application.
Regarding claim 10 Besier shows the second cut-off valve 264 is a normally open valve and/or a solenoid valve.
Regarding claim 11, as broadly claimed, Besier shows in figure 2 a brake pedal 26, and a brake pedal sensor 230,232 for detecting an operation of the brake pedal, wherein the first control unit 18 and the second control unit 20 are connected to the brake pedal sensor and are configured to control the cut-off valve and activate the first and second hydraulic pressure suppliers depending on sensor signals of the brake pedal sensor.
Regarding claim 12, as broadly claimed, Besier shows a master cylinder arrangement coupled to the brake pedal for providing a pedal feel in a normal operating mode and/or providing a hydraulic fall-back mode.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besier/Linhoff as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Farres U.S. 2019/0337502..
Regarding claim 2 Besier/Linhoff lacks specifically describing the first and second control units ECU1 and ECU2 as operating in a ‘master-slave system’, as broadly claimed.
However given their operability, as described in the specification, this is believed to be the case.
Nevertheless Farres shows a redundant braking system for autonomous vehicles and states in paras 0115-0116:
[0115] Additionally, there may be provided autonomous drive control units 71,72, as redundant units which work either in a parallel mode or in a master/slave mode.
[0116] According to one example, electrical control signals delivered by first autonomous drive control unit 71 are denoted ES1, electrical control signals delivered by second autonomous drive control unit 72 are denoted ES2.
One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that given the described operability and functioning of the first and second control units 18,20 in Besier that these units are capable of operating a ‘master-slave’ system—as broadly claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7123. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 A.M.-7:00P.M..
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, Rob 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.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
10/4/26
Prosecution Insights