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 .
2. This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant's Communication received on May 29, 2025 for application number 19/133,748. This Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Specification, Drawings, Abstract, Oath/Declaration, and Claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 29, 2025 was submitted in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Priority
4. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE 10 2023 205 831.6 filed on June 21, 2023.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 13-23 are pending in this application.
Claims 13-23 are rejected.
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 enough 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 enough 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 enough 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 enough structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
“Arrangement” in claim 22.
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.
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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 13-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (LOEFFELMANN – WO 2022/037820 A1).
Regarding claim 13, LOEFFELMANN discloses:
A method for operating a brake system, the brake system including a primary brake actuator (primary pressure generator 20: Figs. 1A-1B) and a secondary brake actuator (secondary pressure generator 30: Figs. 1A-1B), wherein a target brake pressure is to be set by the primary brake actuator (primary pressure generator 20: Figs. 1A-1B), the method comprising the following steps:
in a first monitoring phase, monitoring by the secondary brake actuator (secondary pressure generator 30: Figs. 1A-1B) the primary brake actuator (primary pressure generator 20: Figs. 1A-1B) to ascertain whether the target brake pressure is present (LOEFFELMANN discloses a method for checking the availability of a hydraulic fallback level in a power brake system with electronic slip control, to an electronic controller and to a power brake system with electronic slip control. During normal operation, power brake systems (10) execute braking procedures without a driver being involved in the buildup of braking pressure. A braking requirement is detected by an electronic controller (24) and assigned to a braking pressure, which is then set through electric actuation of the drive (22) of a primary pressure generator (20). By way of example, many power brake systems (10) are equipped with an electrically actuable secondary pressure generator (30) in order to adapt the braking pressure, for each individual wheel, to the slip conditions prevailing at the wheel. Said secondary pressure generator is in contact with the wheel brakes (16) in parallel with the primary pressure generator (20) and may be used to take over the buildup of braking pressure in a hydraulic fallback level. For safety reasons, it is proposed to check the availability of this hydraulic fallback level during normal braking operation of the power brake system (10) at particular time intervals: Abstract); and
when the target brake pressure is not present, hydraulically interrupting, by the secondary brake actuator (secondary pressure generator 30: Figs. 1A-1B), at least one hydraulic connection between the primary brake actuator (primary pressure generator 20: Figs. 1A-1B) and the secondary brake actuator (secondary pressure generator 30: Figs. 1A-1B) {[0019, Abstract]: “assessing the availability of the hydraulic fallback level to compare the brake pressure generated by the secondary pressure generator (actual brake pressure) with a limit value for this brake pressure (setpoint brake pressure) stored in the electronic control unit. The hydraulic fallback level is available when the brake pressure generated is equal to or greater than this limit value” and “Said secondary pressure generator is in contact with the wheel brakes (16) in parallel with the primary pressure generator (20) and may be used to take over the buildup of braking pressure in a hydraulic fallback level”}.
Regarding claim 22, LOEFFELMANN discloses:
A brake system, comprising:
a primary brake actuator (primary pressure generator 20: Figs. 1A-1B);
a secondary brake actuator (secondary pressure generator 30: Figs. 1A-1B); and
an arrangement (Hydraulic layout of a power brake system: Figs. 1A-1B) configured to operate a brake system, wherein a target brake pressure is to be set by the primary brake actuator (primary pressure generator 20: Figs. 1A-1B), the arrangement (Hydraulic layout of a power brake system: Figs. 1A-1B) configured to:
in a first monitoring phase, monitor by the secondary brake actuator (secondary pressure generator 30: Figs. 1A-1B) the primary brake actuator (primary pressure generator 20: Figs. 1A-1B) to ascertain whether the target brake pressure is present (LOEFFELMANN discloses a method for checking the availability of a hydraulic fallback level in a power brake system with electronic slip control, to an electronic controller and to a power brake system with electronic slip control. During normal operation, power brake systems (10) execute braking procedures without a driver being involved in the buildup of braking pressure. A braking requirement is detected by an electronic controller (24) and assigned to a braking pressure, which is then set through electric actuation of the drive (22) of a primary pressure generator (20). By way of example, many power brake systems (10) are equipped with an electrically actuable secondary pressure generator (30) in order to adapt the braking pressure, for each individual wheel, to the slip conditions prevailing at the wheel. Said secondary pressure generator is in contact with the wheel brakes (16) in parallel with the primary pressure generator (20) and may be used to take over the buildup of braking pressure in a hydraulic fallback level. For safety reasons, it is proposed to check the availability of this hydraulic fallback level during normal braking operation of the power brake system (10) at particular time intervals: Abstract), and
when the target brake pressure is not present, hydraulically interrupt, by the secondary brake actuator (secondary pressure generator 30: Figs. 1A-1B), at least one hydraulic connection between the primary brake actuator (primary pressure generator 20: Figs. 1A-1B) and the secondary brake actuator (secondary pressure generator 30: Figs. 1A-1B) (secondary pressure generator 30: Figs. 1A-1B) {[0019, Abstract]: “assessing the availability of the hydraulic fallback level to compare the brake pressure generated by the secondary pressure generator (actual brake pressure) with a limit value for this brake pressure (setpoint brake pressure) stored in the electronic control unit. The hydraulic fallback level is available when the brake pressure generated is equal to or greater than this limit value” and “Said secondary pressure generator is in contact with the wheel brakes (16) in parallel with the primary pressure generator (20) and may be used to take over the buildup of braking pressure in a hydraulic fallback level”}.
Regarding claim 23, LOEFFELMANN discloses:
A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which is stored a computer program for operating a brake system, the brake system including:
a primary brake actuator (primary pressure generator 20: Figs. 1A-1B) and a secondary brake actuator (secondary pressure generator 30: Figs. 1A-1B), wherein a target brake pressure is to be set by the primary brake actuator (primary pressure generator 20: Figs. 1A-1B), the computer program, when executed by a computer, causing the computer to perform the following steps:
in a first monitoring phase, monitoring by the secondary brake actuator (secondary pressure generator 30: Figs. 1A-1B) the primary brake actuator (primary pressure generator 20: Figs. 1A-1B) to ascertain whether the target brake pressure is present (LOEFFELMANN discloses a method for checking the availability of a hydraulic fallback level in a power brake system with electronic slip control, to an electronic controller and to a power brake system with electronic slip control. During normal operation, power brake systems (10) execute braking procedures without a driver being involved in the buildup of braking pressure. A braking requirement is detected by an electronic controller (24) and assigned to a braking pressure, which is then set through electric actuation of the drive (22) of a primary pressure generator (20). By way of example, many power brake systems (10) are equipped with an electrically actuable secondary pressure generator (30) in order to adapt the braking pressure, for each individual wheel, to the slip conditions prevailing at the wheel. Said secondary pressure generator is in contact with the wheel brakes (16) in parallel with the primary pressure generator (20) and may be used to take over the buildup of braking pressure in a hydraulic fallback level. For safety reasons, it is proposed to check the availability of this hydraulic fallback level during normal braking operation of the power brake system (10) at particular time intervals: Abstract); and
when the target brake pressure is not present, hydraulically interrupting, by the secondary brake actuator (secondary pressure generator 30: Figs. 1A-1B), at least one hydraulic connection between the primary brake actuator (primary pressure generator 20: Figs. 1A-1B) and the secondary brake actuator (secondary pressure generator 30: Figs. 1A-1B) (secondary pressure generator 30: Figs. 1A-1B) {[0019, Abstract]: “assessing the availability of the hydraulic fallback level to compare the brake pressure generated by the secondary pressure generator (actual brake pressure) with a limit value for this brake pressure (setpoint brake pressure) stored in the electronic control unit. The hydraulic fallback level is available when the brake pressure generated is equal to or greater than this limit value” and “Said secondary pressure generator is in contact with the wheel brakes (16) in parallel with the primary pressure generator (20) and may be used to take over the buildup of braking pressure in a hydraulic fallback level”}.
Regarding claim 14, LOEFFELMANN disclose the method according to claim 13, and further on LOEFFELMANN also discloses:
wherein, in a second monitoring phase, the secondary brake actuator (secondary pressure generator 30: Figs. 1A-1B) continues to monitor the primary brake actuator (primary pressure generator 20: Figs. 1A-1B) to ascertain whether the target brake pressure is still present, and, based on the target brake pressure not being still present, the secondary brake actuator (secondary pressure generator 30: Figs. 1A-1B) takes over braking functions of the primary brake actuator (primary pressure generator 20: Figs. 1A-1B) {[Abstract, 0019-0032]}.
Regarding claim 15, LOEFFELMANN disclose the method according to claim 13, and further on LOEFFELMANN also discloses:
wherein, in the first monitoring phase, a non- presence is determined when the target brake pressure is undershot by a first amount for a first period of time (Fig. 2 and [0030]: “In the following step S4, the brake pressure build-up taking place in the power brake system (10) is detected by the electronic control unit (24). There, a logic provided for this purpose evaluates, for example, the speed of the pressure build-up and/or the pressure level reached within a period of time. If a comparison (step S5) with the target values stored in the control unit (24) leads to the result that the brake pressure has been built up as expected, it is concluded that the hydraulic fallback level is available and the method is ended. If, on the other hand, the build-up of brake pressure does not correspond to expectations, it is concluded that there is a fault in the hydraulic fallback level and a warning signal, for example of an acoustic and/or visual nature, is sent to the driver”).
Regarding claim 16, LOEFFELMANN disclose the method according to claim 15, and further on LOEFFELMANN also discloses:
wherein, in the second monitoring phase, a non-presence is determined when the target brake pressure is undershot by a second amount for a second period of time (Fig. 2 and [0030]: “In the following step S4, the brake pressure build-up taking place in the power brake system (10) is detected by the electronic control unit (24). There, a logic provided for this purpose evaluates, for example, the speed of the pressure build-up and/or the pressure level reached within a period of time. If a comparison (step S5) with the target values stored in the control unit (24) leads to the result that the brake pressure has been built up as expected, it is concluded that the hydraulic fallback level is available and the method is ended. If, on the other hand, the build-up of brake pressure does not correspond to expectations, it is concluded that there is a fault in the hydraulic fallback level and a warning signal, for example of an acoustic and/or visual nature, is sent to the driver”).
Regarding claim 17, LOEFFELMANN disclose the method according to claim 16, and further on LOEFFELMANN also discloses:
wherein the second period of time is greater than the first period of time (Fig. 2 and [0030]: “In the following step S4, the brake pressure build-up taking place in the power brake system (10) is detected by the electronic control unit (24). There, a logic provided for this purpose evaluates, for example, the speed of the pressure build-up and/or the pressure level reached within a period of time. If a comparison (step S5) with the target values stored in the control unit (24) leads to the result that the brake pressure has been built up as expected, it is concluded that the hydraulic fallback level is available and the method is ended. If, on the other hand, the build-up of brake pressure does not correspond to expectations, it is concluded that there is a fault in the hydraulic fallback level and a warning signal, for example of an acoustic and/or visual nature, is sent to the driver”).
Regarding claim 18, LOEFFELMANN disclose the method according to claim 13, and further on LOEFFELMANN also discloses:
wherein the hydraulic interruption between the primary brake actuator (primary pressure generator 20: Figs. 1A-1B) and the secondary brake actuator (secondary pressure generator 30: Figs. 1A-1B) is carried out using at least one change-over valve ([0025]: “A corresponding electrical control of the drive (32) of the secondary pressure generator (30) and, if necessary, the directional control valves of the valve device (34) is also determined and carried out by the electronic control unit (24) if necessary”) of the secondary brake actuator (secondary pressure generator 30: Figs. 1A-1B).
Regarding claim 19, LOEFFELMANN disclose the method according to claim 13, and further on LOEFFELMANN also discloses:
wherein the primary brake actuator (primary pressure generator 20: Figs. 1A-1B) and the secondary brake actuator (secondary pressure generator 30: Figs. 1A-1B) are electronically controlled with an identical brake specification ([Abstract, 0019-0025]).
Regarding claim 20, LOEFFELMANN disclose the method according to claim 19, and further on LOEFFELMANN also discloses:
wherein the target brake pressure to be set by the primary and/or the secondary brake actuator (secondary pressure generator 30: Figs. 1A-1B) for a brake specification is stored in the primary brake actuator (primary pressure generator 20: Figs. 1A-1B) and the secondary brake actuator (secondary pressure generator 30: Figs. 1A-1B) based on a brake specification-target brake pressure relationship that is identical in the primary and secondary brake actuators (20, 30) ([Abstract, 0019-0025]).
Regarding claim 21, LOEFFELMANN disclose the method according to claim 14, and further on LOEFFELMANN also discloses:
wherein, in order to take over the braking functions of the primary brake actuator (primary pressure generator 20: Figs. 1A-1B) by operating the secondary brake actuator (secondary pressure generator 30: Figs. 1A-1B), at least one high-pressure switching valve of the secondary brake actuator (secondary pressure generator 30: Figs. 1A-1B) is opened during operation of the secondary brake actuator (secondary pressure generator 30: Figs. 1A-1B) in order to supply the secondary brake actuator (secondary pressure generator 30: Figs. 1A-1B) with hydraulic fluid ([0025]: “A corresponding electrical control of the drive (32) of the secondary pressure generator (30) and, if necessary, the directional control valves of the valve device (34) is also determined and carried out by the electronic control unit (24) if necessary”).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2019/0039583 A1 – Besier
US 2016/0152223 A1 - Bauer
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ruben Picon-Feliciano whose telephone number is (571)-272-4938. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday within 11:30 am-7:30 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lindsay M. Low can be reached on (571)272-1196. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUBEN PICON-FELICIANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/GRANT MOUBRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights