DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
2. The drawings are objected to because there is no official Drawings filed; the Drawings are needed. 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 § 102/103
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-5, and 7-16 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Blattert et al. (US 2017/0341633 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Blattert invention teaches a method for actuating a brake system in a vehicle [title], wherein the brake system includes a hydraulic vehicle brake (1) including a brake servo unit [brake booster (10)], and at least one electromechanical braking device having an electric braking motor (13) configured to generate an electromechanical braking force [para. 0039], the method comprising: in an event of a partial failure or a complete failure of the brake servo unit (10) of the hydraulic vehicle brake (1), actuating the electromechanical braking device when braking, in addition to the hydraulic braking force such that an increase in electromechanical braking force is performed in multiple stages [Figure 3 shows a flow chart with process steps for braking a vehicle in the event of a failure of the brake boosting; which includes the loops [step 32, step 33 and step 34 are loop processes; which would be well-known to be considered as providing a performance of an increasing electromechanical brake force in multiple stages], wherein, at each stage of multiple stages, the electromechanical braking force is held constant or approximately constant [Furthermore, para. 0018 teaches following the detection of a partial failure or a complete failure of the brake boosting, but still before the detection of a driver's braking demand, the electric brake motor is moved so far in the clamping direction until a brake contact point is reached at which the brake piston that is acted upon by the brake motor is in contact with the brake disk without an air gap. Said procedure has the advantage that following the detection of driver's braking demand, an electromechanical braking force can be produced by operating the electric brake motor without a time delay by moving the brake motor further in the clamping direction; which would be well-known to be considered to be equivalent to the electromechanical brake force is constant or approximately constant].
Regarding claim 2, as discussed in claim 1, Blattert invention also teaches wherein the brake servo unit (10) is electrically actuatable in the hydraulic vehicle brake [para. 0034 teaches the brake booster (10 forms an electrically controlled actuator for influencing the brake pressure].
Regarding claim 3, as discussed in claim 1, Blattert invention also teaches wherein a maximum electromechanical braking support is established, and each stage of the multiple stages corresponds to a defined percentage of a maximum electromechanical braking support [Figure 3 (steps 32-34); and/or para. 0045-0047].
Regarding claim 4, as discussed in claim 1, Blattert invention also teaches wherein the multiple stages include at least three stages [Figure 3].
Regarding claim 5, as discussed in claim 1, Blattert invention does not specifically teach wherein to change the electromechanical braking force, the electromechanical braking motor is actuated for a duration of at least 20 ms, in order to increase or decrease the electromotive braking force percentage by one stage.
However, Blattert further teaches the time interval for building up an electromechanical braking force is reduced [para. 0019]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have included a duration of at least 20 ms, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 7, see discussion in claim 1 [Figure 3].
Regarding claim 8, as discussed in claim 1, Blattert invention further teaches wherein the electromechanical braking force is dependent on the height of the brake pedal actuation [para. 0035; and Figure 3], wherein upon reaching a brake pedal actuation limit the electromechanical braking force is limited to the maximum electromechanical braking force support [Figure 3].
Regarding claim 9, as discussed in claim 1, Blattert invention further teaches wherein the electromechanical braking force is only generated when a hydraulic brake pressure in the hydraulic vehicle brake reaches or exceeds a minimum pressure level [para. 0015-0016, 0021 teaches the hydraulic brake pressure is reduced or cut-off; which would be considered to be equivalent to the hydraulic brake pressure is reached or exceeded the minimum pressure level].
Regarding claim 10, as discussed in claim 1, Blattert invention further teaches wherein when the hydraulic brake pressure is below the minimum pressure level, the electric brake motor is actuated to reduce a clearance distance until brake pads are applied to the brake disc [para. 0018-0020 and 0039-0040].
Regarding claim 11, as discussed in claim 1, Blattert invention further teaches wherein during the slippage on a wheel of the vehicle [failure occurred], the electromechanical braking force acting on the wheel is reduced [abstract].
Regarding claim 12, see discussion in claim 1 [Figure 3].
Regarding claim 13, see discussion in claim 1; notes Figure 1, Blattert invention further teaches control unit (11).
Regarding claims 14-15, see discussion in claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, see discussion in claim 1 [Figure 3].
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claim 6 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: the combination of limitations in claim 5 and 6 would be considered as an allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHNNY H HOANG whose telephone number is (571) 272-4843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday [Maxi-Flex].
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 on (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.
/J.H.H./
August 5, 2026
/Johnny H. Hoang/
Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/HUNG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
