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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers filed on 04/17/2025 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/28/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figure 4 should be labeled with part number 200 for the liquid pressure supply module as referenced at p. 17 ll. 26-27.
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 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.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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(s) is/are:
“a liquid pressure supply module” in claims 2, 13, and 15. The generic placeholder “module” is linked by linking word “configured to” to the functional limitation “supply liquid pressure to the plurality of hydraulic brake modules by being operated by a first motor” without reciting the structure of the module capable of performing the recited function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification has returned the following respective structures:
liquid pressure supply unit 230 (p. 18 ll. 9-14)
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 6-7, 13, and 17-19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the wheel speed signal” in line 3. It is unclear to which wheel speed signal the limitation refers. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as --the wheel speed signals--.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the hydraulic brake module” in line 4. It is unclear to which hydraulic brake module the limitation refers. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as --the hydraulic brake module of the respective wheel--.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the remaining wheel” in line 6. It is unclear to which remaining wheel the limitation refers. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as --at least one remaining wheel--.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the hydraulic brake module” in lines 3-4 and 7. It is unclear to which hydraulic brake module the limitation refers. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as --the hydraulic brake modules--.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the wheel speed signal” in lines 4 and 5. It is unclear to which wheel speed signal the limitation refers. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as --the wheel speed signals--.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the hydraulic brake module” in line 3. It is unclear to which hydraulic brake module the limitation refers. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as --at least one hydraulic brake module--.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the remaining wheel” in lines 4-5. It is unclear to which remaining wheel the limitation refers. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as --at least one remaining wheel--.
Claim 18 is rejected for depending upon an indefinite base claim.
Claim Analysis - 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.
Claims 1-20 are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 at step 2A prong 2 because the step of performing braking control on an electronic parking brake recited in each independent claims integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 10-12, 14-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HA (KR 10-2022-0124795, provided by Applicant on 03/28/2025 IDS, English language equivalent in US 12,630,140) in view of VAN THIEL (US 12,263,821).
Regarding claim 1, HA discloses a brake system comprising:
a plurality of wheel speed sensors (121-127) respectively installed in a plurality of wheels of a vehicle (101-107, col. 4 l. 66 - col. 5 l. 1);
a plurality of hydraulic brake modules (calipers 102-108) related to braking of the plurality of wheels (col. 4 l. 65, col. 5 ll. 31-33); and
a first controller (211) configured to perform braking control on the plurality of hydraulic brake modules in response to a pedal displacement signal (col. 5 ll. 25-28), which corresponds to a movement of a brake pedal (col. 5 l. 23);
wherein the first controller performs braking control on an electronic parking brake (col. 5 ll. 2-5), which is provided in at least one of the plurality of wheels (Fig. 1, col. 5 ll. 2-5), in response to an operating signal of an EPB switch (253)(col. 6 ll. 24-30).
HA is silent regarding a steering system of the vehicle and thus does not disclose the second controller provided in a steering system as claimed.
VAN THIEL teaches in a steering system of a vehicle (electronic steering system, c. 9 l. 61) when a failure of a first controller (primary control unit or parking brake control unit, col. 9 ll. 57-59) which performs braking control on an electronic parking brake (electropneumatic parking brake, col. 1 ll. 16-17 and 22-24, col. 9 ll. 25-27), which is provided in at least one of the plurality of wheels (implied/inherent), is identified (implied, col. 9 ll. 55-59), a second controller (further control unit, col. 9 l. 54), which is provided in a steering system of the vehicle (col. 9 ll. 60-61 and 63-65), performs braking control on the electronic parking brake (activates bypass valve, col. 9 ll. 25-27, 29-33, and 64-65) in response to an operating signal of an EPB switch (implied, i.a. col. 2 ll. 24-25)(col. 9 l. 65 - col. 10 l. 2, col. 16 ll. 30-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to activate the electronic parking brake of HA by a steering controller upon determination of a failure of a first controller as taught by VAN THIEL to provide redundancy in the parking brake system and prevent vehicle rollaway upon failure of the first controller.
Regarding claim 3, HA as modified teaches the brake system of claim 1.
HA further discloses wherein the electronic parking brake performs a parking brake function that maintains a stopped state of the vehicle (implied/inherent, col. 6 ll. 24-30).
Regarding claim 10, HA as modified teaches the brake system of claim 1.
HA further discloses wherein the plurality of wheel speed sensors (121-127) comprise first and second wheel speed sensors (121,123) respectively installed in first and second wheels (101,103) of the vehicle (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, HA as modified teaches the brake system of claim 1.
HA further discloses the electronic parking brake (i.e., as indicated by motors 111 and 113, Fig. 1) is installed in a second wheel (105,107) of the vehicle (Fig. 1).
VAN THIEL is relied upon to teach activating the electronic parking brake of HA by a steering controller upon determination of a failure of the first controller to provide redundancy in the parking brake system and prevent vehicle rollaway.
HA as modified teaches wherein the second controller of the steering system performs braking control on the electronic parking brake installed in a second wheel of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 12, HA as modified teaches the brake system of claim 1.
HA further discloses the electronic parking brakes (i.e., as indicated by motors 111 and 113, Fig. 1) respectively installed in first and second wheels (105,107) of the vehicle (Fig. 1).
VAN THIEL is relied upon to teach activating the electronic parking brake of HA by a steering controller upon determination of a failure of the first controller to provide redundancy in the parking brake system and prevent vehicle rollaway.
HA as modified teaches wherein the second controller of the steering system performs braking control on the electronic parking brakes respectively installed in first and second wheels of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 14, HA as modified teaches a method of controlling a brake system, which comprises a plurality of wheel speed sensors (121-127) respectively installed in a plurality of wheels (101-107, col. 4 l. 66 - col. 5 l. 1) of a vehicle (Fig. 1), a plurality of hydraulic brake modules (calipers 102-108) related to braking of the plurality of wheels (col. 4 l. 65, col. 5 ll. 31-33), and a first controller (211) configured to perform braking control on the plurality of hydraulic brake modules (col. 5 ll. 25-28), the method comprising:
performing, by the first controller, braking control on the plurality of hydraulic brake modules in response to at least one of a pedal displacement signal (col. 5 ll. 25-28), which corresponds to a movement of a brake pedal (col. 5 l. 23); and
performing, by the first controller, braking control on an electronic parking brake (col. 5 ll. 2-5), which is provided in at least one of the plurality of wheels (Fig. 1, col. 5 ll. 2-5), in response to at least one of an operating signal of an EPB switch (253)(col. 6 ll. 24-30).
HA is silent regarding a steering system of the vehicle and thus does not disclose the second controller provided in a steering system and performing step thereof.
VAN THIEL teaches performing, by a second controller (further control unit, col. 9 l. 54) provided in a steering system (electronic steering system, c. 9 l. 61) of a vehicle (col. 9 ll. 60-61 and 63-65), braking control on an electronic parking brake (electropneumatic parking brake, col. 1 ll. 16-17 and 22-24, col. 9 ll. 25-27)(activates bypass valve, col. 9 ll. 25-27, 29-33, and 64-65), which is provided in at least one of the plurality of wheels (implied/inherent), in response to at least one of an operating signal of an EPB switch (implied, i.a. col. 2 ll. 24-25)(col. 9 l. 65 - col. 10 l. 2, col. 16 ll. 30-36) when a failure of a first controller (primary control unit or parking brake control unit, col. 9 ll. 57-59) is identified (implied, col. 9 ll. 55-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to activate the electronic parking brake of HA by a steering controller upon determination of a failure of a first controller as taught by VAN THIEL to provide redundancy in the parking brake system and prevent vehicle rollaway upon failure of the first controller.
Regarding claim 15, HA as modified teaches the method of claim 14.
HA further discloses controlling, by the first controller (211), a first motor (c. 5 ll. 58-60) of a liquid pressure supply module (205) configured to supply liquid pressure to the plurality of hydraulic brake modules (c. 5 ll. 55-58).
Regarding claim 20, HA as modified teaches the method of claim 14.
HA further discloses performing braking control on the electronic parking brakes (i.e., as indicated by motors 111 and 113, Fig. 1) respectively installed in a first wheel (105) and a second wheel (107) of the vehicle (Fig. 1)(col. 6 ll. 39-41).
VAN THIEL is relied upon to teach activating the electronic parking brake of HA by a steering controller upon determination of a failure of the first controller to provide redundancy in the parking brake system and prevent vehicle rollaway.
HA as modified teaches performing, by the second controller of the steering system, braking control on the electronic parking brake installed in a second wheel of the vehicle.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HA (KR 10-2022-0124795, provided by Applicant on 03/28/2025 IDS, English language equivalent in US 12,630,140) in view of VAN THIEL (US 12,263,821) and KIM (US 2022/0227340).
Regarding claim 2, HA as modified teaches the brake system of claim 1.
HA further discloses a liquid pressure supply module (205) configured to supply liquid pressure to the plurality of hydraulic brake modules (c. 5 ll. 55-58) by being operated by a first motor (c. 5 ll. 58-60),
wherein the first controller (211) comprises:
a first processor (implied by “ECU”, c. 5 l. 34) configured to perform braking control on at least one of the plurality of hydraulic brake modules (implied, c. 5 l. 65 - c. 6 l. 2),
such that the hydraulic pressure supply device generates a hydraulic pressure according to the position of the pedal and transmits the hydraulic pressure to wheel cylinders such that the vehicle is braked (c. 5 ll. 55-58).
HA is silent regarding details of how the first controller drives the first motor.
KIM teaches a first driver circuit (170, 0051 l. 5, Fig. 2) configured to control a first motor (20, 0049 l. 1) to allow the liquid pressure supply module (1130, 0031 ll. 2-3) to supply liquid pressure to at least one of the plurality of hydraulic brake modules (0034 ll. 1-4) in response to a control signal outputted from the first processor (i.a. Figs. 1-2, 0051 ll. 4-6).
Absent further guidance from HA on how the first controller drives the first motor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the first controller of HA to drive the first motor as taught by KIM such that the hydraulic pressure supply device generates a hydraulic pressure according to the position of the pedal and transmits the hydraulic pressure to wheel cylinders such that the vehicle is braked.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HA (KR 10-2022-0124795, provided by Applicant on 03/28/2025 IDS, English language equivalent in US 12,630,140) in view of VAN THIEL (US 12,263,821), KIM (US 2022/0227340), and YAMOMOTO (JP 2007-55565).
Regarding claim 4, HA as modified teaches the brake system of claim 2.
VAN THIEL is relied upon to teach the steering system of the vehicle (electronic steering system, cl. 9 l. 61) and the second controller (further control unit, col. 9 l. 54) of the steering system (col. 9 ll. 60-61 and 63-65).
VAN THIEL is silent regarding how the second controller controls the steering system.
YAMAMOTO teaches a second controller (100) of a steering system (98, Fig. 12, 0131 ll. 2-5) comprises:
a second processor (implied by, ECU 100) configured to control the steering system (0133 ll. 12-14);
a second driver circuit (29, 0131 l. 12) configured to control a second motor (94, 0131 l. 12)(0131 l. 12), which provides driving power in the steering system (0132 l. 1), in response to a control signal outputted from the second processor (implied, i.a. 0133 ll. 12-14, 0134 ll. 7-9).
Absent further guidance in VAN THIEL on how the second controller controls the steering system, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the second controller of the steering system of HA as modified to include a second processor and second driver circuit as taught by YAMAMOTO to provide a functional electronic steering system.
VAN THIEL is relied upon to teach the electronic parking brake is activated by a steering controller upon determination of a failure a first controller.
VAN THIEL is not relied upon to teach how the steering control controls the electronic parking brake upon determination of the failure of the first controller because the electronic parking brake of VAN THIEL is activated electro-pneumatically while that of HA is activated by an electric motor.
HA further discloses a controller (211) controls the electronic parking brake by:
a processor (320, Fig. 3, c. 6 ll. 47-49) configured to control the electronic parking brake (250, c. 6 ll. 39-41); and
a third driver circuit (371) configured to control a third motor (111), which provides driving power in the electronic parking brake (c. 6 ll. 44-47), in response to a control signal outputted from the third processor (implied, Fig. 3, c. 6 ll. 39-49).
YAMAMOTO further teaches the second controller (100) of the steering system (98, Fig. 12, 0131 ll. 2-5) further comprises:
a third driver circuit (28, 0095 l. 10) configured to control a third motor (30, 0095 l. 11), which provides driving power in the electronic parking brake (implied, 0094 l. 1), in response to the control signal outputted from the second processor (0095 ll. 10-14).
When configuring the system of HA such that that the electronic parking brake is activated by a steering controller upon failure of a first controller as taught by VAN THIEL, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the steering controller taught by YAMAMOTO above to control the electronic parking brake of HA through a third driver circuit as further taught by YAMAMOTO to provide redundancy in the parking brake system and prevent vehicle rollaway upon failure of the first controller.
The claimed "Generic Computing Component” (e.g., control unit, processor, component) is taken as known to a person of ordinary skill in the art as an electronic control unit, ECU, or microprocessor which are conventional computers with non-transitory memory or art recognized equivalents including but not limited to a single controller, sections or parts of a single controller, or multiple linked controllers.
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HA (KR 10-2022-0124795, provided by Applicant on 03/28/2025 IDS, English language equivalent in US 12,630,140) in view of VAN THIEL (US 12,263,821) and SUGIYAMA (US 6,292,733).
Regarding claim 7, HA as modified teaches the brake system of claim 1.
HA is not relied upon to teach the further limitations of the claim.
SUGIYAMA teaches when a failure of a wheel speed sensor (col. 4 ll. 1-2) installed in at least one of a plurality of wheels (col. 4 ll. 1-2) is identified (col. 4 ll. 1-2), a first controller (controller, col. 4 l. 2) performs braking control on a hydraulic brake module (each wheel cylinder, i.a. col. 3 ll. 27-28)(braking force distribution control, col. 4 l. 4) in response to a wheel speed signal outputted from a wheel speed sensor installed in a remaining wheel (col. 4 ll. 4-6) to prevent an increase in the lock tendencies of the rear road wheels due to an excessive braking force so as to prevent a deterioration of the vehicular running stability and prevent the increase in the braking distance due to the insufficient braking force even when one of the vehicular road wheel velocity sensors has failed (col. 3 ll. 14-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the brake system of HA to utilize the remaining wheel speed sensors to continue braking control when a wheel speed sensor fails as taught by SUGIYAMA to prevent an increase in the lock tendencies of the rear road wheels due to an excessive braking force so as to prevent a deterioration of the vehicular running stability and prevent the increase in the braking distance due to the insufficient braking force even when one of the vehicular road wheel velocity sensors has failed.
Regarding claim 19, HA as modified teaches the method of claim 14.
HA is not relied upon to teach the further limitations of the claim.
SUGIYAMA teaches performing, by the first controller (controller, col. 4 l. 2), braking control (braking force distribution control, col. 4 l. 4) on the hydraulic brake module (each wheel cylinder, i.a. col. 3 ll. 27-28) in response to the wheel speed signal outputted from the wheel speed sensor installed in a remaining wheel (col. 4 ll. 4-6) when a failure of the wheel speed sensor (col. 4 ll. 1-2) installed in at least one of the plurality of wheels (col. 4 ll. 1-2) is identified (col. 4 ll. 1-2) to prevent an increase in the lock tendencies of the rear road wheels due to an excessive braking force so as to prevent a deterioration of the vehicular running stability and prevent the increase in the braking distance due to the insufficient braking force even when one of the vehicular road wheel velocity sensors has failed (col. 3 ll. 14-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method of HA to utilize the remaining wheel speed sensors to continue braking control when a wheel speed sensor fails as taught by SUGIYAMA to prevent an increase in the lock tendencies of the rear road wheels due to an excessive braking force so as to prevent a deterioration of the vehicular running stability and prevent the increase in the braking distance due to the insufficient braking force even when one of the vehicular road wheel velocity sensors has failed.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HA (KR 10-2022-0124795, provided by Applicant on 03/28/2025 IDS, English language equivalent in US 12,630,140) in view of VAN THIEL (US 12,263,821) and FARRES (US 11,904,829).
Regarding claim 8, HA as modified teaches the brake system of claim 1.
VAN THIEL is relied upon to teach activating the electronic parking brake of HA by a steering controller upon determination of a failure of the first controller to provide redundancy in the parking brake system and prevent vehicle rollaway.
VAN THIEL is silent regarding how the determination of the failure of the first controller is performed.
FARRES teaches an internal communication network (74) configured to connect a first controller (71) and a second controller (72),
wherein the first controller and the second controller identify states thereof through the internal communication network (col. 11 l. 63 - col. 12 l. 5) to provide a watchdog function, so that whenever a malfunction occurs the other control unit takes control of braking (col. 12 ll. 6-9).
Absent guidance from VAN THIEL on how the failure of the first controller is determined, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the second controller of the steering system of HA as modified by VAN THIEL to determine malfunction of the first controller by monitoring an internal communication network as taught by FARRES to provide a watchdog function, so that whenever a malfunction occurs the second controller of the steering system takes control of the parking braking function.
HA as modified teaches an internal communication network configured to connect the first controller and the second controller of the steering system, wherein the first controller and the second controller of the steering system identify states thereof through the internal communication network.
Regarding claim 9, HA as modified teaches the brake system of claim 1.
HA discloses a single wheel speed sensor (e.g., 121) installed in a first wheel (e.g., 101) rather than two as claimed.
FARRES teaches a plurality of wheel speed sensors comprise a first wheel speed sensor (main WSSs, Fig. 3) and a second wheel speed sensor (backup WSSs, Fig. 3) installed in a first wheel of a vehicle (implied) to improve redundancy of the brake system (col. 3 ll. 23-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the brake system of HA to have backup wheel speed sensors at a first wheel of the vehicle as taught by FARRES to improve redundancy of the brake system.
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HA (KR 10-2022-0124795, provided by Applicant on 03/28/2025 IDS, English language equivalent in US 12,630,140) in view of VAN THIEL (US 12,263,821) and YANAGIDA (US 12,403,876).
Regarding claim 13, HA as modified teaches the brake system of claim 1.
HA further discloses a single hydraulic pressure supply module configured to supply hydraulic pressure to the hydraulic brake modules rather than two hydraulic pressure supply modules.
YANAGIDA teaches a hydraulic brake system comprising first and second hydraulic pressure supply modules (first pump 12 and first actuator motor 13, col. 3 ll. 22-23 and 28-29, Fig. 2; second pump 224, third pump 274, and second motor 30, col. 3 ll. 42-43, 50, and 63, col. 6 ll. 25-26, Fig. 2) configured to supply hydraulic pressure to hydraulic brake modules (col. 3 ll. 24-28; col. 3 ll. 42-48),
wherein the first controller controls the first and second hydraulic pressure supply modules to supply the hydraulic pressure to the hydraulic brake modules (col. 6 ll. 40-43) to improve the redundancy of the vehicle brake system (col. 2 ll. 54-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the hydraulic brake system comprising first and second hydraulic pressure supply modules taught by YANAGIDA for the hydraulic brake system comprising only one hydraulic pressure supply module disclosed by HA to improve the redundancy of the vehicle brake system.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HA (KR 10-2022-0124795, provided by Applicant on 03/28/2025 IDS, English language equivalent in US 12,630,140) in view of VAN THIEL (US 12,263,821) and YAMOMOTO (JP 2007-55565).
Regarding claim 16, HA as modified teaches the method of claim 14.
HA further teaches controlling a third motor (111) configured to provide driving power to the electronic parking brake (c. 6 ll. 44-47).
VAN THIEL is relied upon to teach the steering system of the vehicle (electronic steering system, cl. 9 l. 61) and the second controller (further control unit, col. 9 l. 54) of the steering system (col. 9 ll. 60-61 and 63-65).
VAN THIEL is silent regarding how the second controller controls the steering system.
YAMAMOTO teaches controlling a second motor (94, 0131 l. 12), which provides driving power in the steering system (0132 l. 1), by a second controller (100) of a steering system (98, Fig. 12, 0131 ll. 2-5)(0133 ll. 10-14).
Absent further guidance in VAN THIEL on how the second controller controls the steering system, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the second controller of the steering system of HA as modified to control the steering with a second motor as taught by YAMAMOTO to provide a functional electronic steering system.
controlling a second motor, which provides driving power in the steering system, by the second controller of the steering system; and
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
FARRES (US 11,904,829) discloses a plurality of primary wheel speed sensors each output the wheel speed signal to a first controller through a first channel (Fig. 3) and a plurality of backup wheel speed sensors each output the wheel speed signal to a second controller (backup controller 62) through a second channel (backup communication bus, Fig. 3)(col. 12 ll. 22-29). The reference does not read on claim 5 because the claim requires each of the wheels speed sensors to output the wheel speed signal through both first and second channels and in FARRES the wheel speed sensors are duplicated such that each sensor outputs the wheel speed signal through a single channel.
Claims 6 and 17-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK L. GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-7555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 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, 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.
/MARK L. GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights