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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claims 1-7, 10, 11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brenn (US2023/0126121 A1).
Regarding to Claim 1, Brenn teaches a method for operating a control unit for a parking brake system comprising a parking brake, a first microcontroller (Fig. 3, Part 10), a second microcontroller (Fig. 3, Part 9), a first electronic circuit arrangement (Fig. 3, the circuit in Part 3), a second electronic circuit arrangement (Fig. 3, the circuit in Part 2), and a first H-bridge (Fig. 3, Part 18) and a second H-bridge (Fig. 3, Part 17) configured to control a first servomotor (Fig. 3, Part 5) and a second servomotor (Fig. 3, Part 4) of the parking brake, the method comprising:
testing the first microcontroller and the second microcontroller one after the other when the control unit is switched on (Paragraphs 39, 41, 42, 47-49 would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation);
starting nominal operation of the control unit after the test is ended by activating the second microcontroller to control the first servomotor and the second servomotor and deactivating the first microcontroller as a redundancy (Paragraph 39);
when an error occurs in the second microcontroller, switching from the nominal operation to a non-nominal operation in which the first microcontroller takes over control of the first servomotor and the second servomotor from the second microcontroller (Fig. 3, Paragraphs 47-49); and
transmitting during the nominal operation, only operationally relevant data from the second microcontroller to the first microcontroller so that the transmitted data are available to the first microcontroller when the error occurs (Fig. 3, Paragraphs 47-49, especially Paragraph 49 teaches the token, would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding to Claim 2, Brenn teaches the method, further comprising:
switching, using the parking brake system, from the nominal operation to the non-nominal operation when an error occurs in the second electronic circuit arrangement (Paragraphs 47-49).
Regarding to Claim 3, Brenn teaches the method, wherein, in the non-nominal operation and when the error occurs in the second electronic circuit arrangement, the first microcontroller controls the first H-bridge and the second H-bridge using the first electronic circuit arrangement of the control unit (Paragraphs 47-49).
Regarding to Claim 4, Brenn teaches the method, wherein, in the nominal operation, the second microcontroller controls the first H-bridge and the second H-bridge using the second electronic circuit arrangement of the control unit (Paragraphs 47-49).
Regarding to Claim 5, Brenn teaches the method, wherein the test of the first microcontroller takes place chronologically before the test of the second microcontroller (Paragraph 39, one of the control devices can be considered as a redundancy, which would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding to Claim 6, Brenn teaches the method, wherein the first electronic circuit arrangement is switched to inactive after the test has been carried out so that the first electronic circuit arrangement does not control the first servomotor and the second servomotor (Paragraphs 47-49).
Regarding to Claim 7, Brenn teaches the method, wherein, during the nominal operation of the control unit, non-operationally relevant data are not transmitted from the microcontroller controlling the first servomotor and the second servomotor of the parking brake to the other microcontroller (Paragraphs 47-49).
Regarding to Claim 10, Brenn teaches the method, wherein a computer program product, contains instructions that can be read by a control unit such that the control unit carries out the method when the control unit executes the computer program product (Paragraph 52 would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding to Claim 11, Brenn teaches a control unit for a parking brake system of a motor vehicle, comprising:
a first H-bridge and a second H-bridge configured to selectively control a first servomotor and a second servomotor of the parking brake system (Fig. 3, Part 18, Part 17, Part 5, Part 4);
a first electronic circuit arrangement configured to control the first H-bridge (Fig. 3, the circuit in Part 3);
a second electronic circuit arrangement configured to control the second H-bridge (Fig. 3, the circuit in Part 2);
a first microcontroller configured to control the first circuit arrangement (Fig. 3, Part 10); and
a second microcontroller configured to control the second circuit arrangement (Fig. 3, Part 9),
wherein the first microcontroller and the second microcontroller are connected to one another such that the first microcontroller and the second microcontroller transmit data or are able to transmit data (Fig. 3, Paragraphs 47-49), and
wherein the control unit is configured to carry out the method according to claim 1 (Please see the rejection of Claim 1).
Regarding to Claim 13, Brenn teaches a parking brake system for a motor vehicle, comprising:
a parking brake including at least one actuator configured to block a wheel of the motor vehicle and at least one servomotor configured to adjust the at least one actuator (Fig. 3, Part 15, Part 5); and
a control unit according to claim 11 configured to control the at least one servomotor (Please see the rejection of Claim 11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Alfter (US2019/0344762 A1) teaches a brake system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YI-KAI WANG whose telephone number is (313)446-6613. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at 5712721196. 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.
/YI-KAI WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights