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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/24/2025 and 05/24/2025 were filed before the first action on the merits of the application. The submission 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 5 is a series of unlabeled rectangular boxes accompanied only by reference numbers; the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels. 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 § 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.
Claim 2-3 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 2 it recites “from: a force sensor, a travel sensor, an angle sensor,”, “a travel sensor” appears to be a literal translation from a foreign language, “travel sensor” is not a term of art in English such that one of ordinary skill in the art would know what sensors would constitute a “travel sensor”; looking at different machine translations it appears that “travel sensor” can also be translated as “displacement sensor”, as such it will be interpreted as such for judging the claim on its merits.
Claim 3 depends on claim 2 and inherits the 112(b) issue concerning “travel sensor”
Claim 6-7 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6 it recites “wherein the brake system comprises two secondary wheel brake modules each for arrangement on one vehicle wheel and in which in each case one of the other electromechanical wheel brakes and in each case one assigned basic control unit are integrated, wherein each of the basic control units is designed to receive control information and to control the assigned electromechanical wheel brake.”
This claims appears to be a literal translation from a foreign language and is idiomatically incorrect and unclear what is being claimed. Firstly “each for arrangement on one vehicle wheel” is unclear if it is claiming each wheel has two secondary brake modules or if one vehicle wheel has one of the two secondary brake modules. Additionally “in each case one of the other electromechanical wheel brakes “ is unclear if “other electromechanical wheel brakes” is referring to the primary braking module(s) or if it is referring to the other of the “at least two secondary braking modules”.
Further “and in which in each case one of the other electromechanical wheel brakes and in each case one assigned basic control unit are integrated,” it is unclear what is meant by “and in which in each case one” and “and in each case one assigned basic control unit are integrated,”, it is unclear what is meant by “case” in the context of claim 6.
Claim 7 depends on claim 6 and inherits these 112(b) issues.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 102009047072 A1, “Electric Braking System, In Particular Electromechanical Brake System”, Weiberle et al. (Machine translation with paragraph numbers provided)
Regarding Claim 1, Weiberle teaches “A brake system for a motor vehicle, comprising a brake pedal having at least one pedal sensor for capturing a driver brake request from pedal sensor data”([0020] “The brake system control unit 22 is redundantly connected to a unit 26 for detecting a brake request from the driver of the motor vehicle, which includes a brake pedal sensor 27 and a parking brake 28.
From the brake request thus detected, the brake system control unit 22 generates a control signal for the wheel brake control units 11 to 14, for the coordinated control of the wheel brakes 7 to 10, via the communication system 21.”);” ;four electromechanical wheel brakes;”([0006] “Furthermore, it is advantageously provided that the respective control unit is designed as a
local wheel brake control unit, controlling in particular an electromechanical brake actuator of one of the wheel brakes.In this case, the control units are therefore designed as local wheel brake control units, which can be integrated into or arranged on a wheel brake. The wheel brake control units implement the control signal from the brake system control unit, whereby the interaction of the individual control units is coordinated or specified via the brake system control unit. Advantageously, each wheel of the motor vehicle is assigned a wheel brake and thus a brake actuator, which has a corresponding wheel brake control unit.” + from figures four wheels (and thus four wheel brakes can be seen));” a vehicle regulator;” at least two brake control units,”([0006]”… in this case, the control units are therefore designed as local wheel brake control units, which can be integrated into or arranged on a wheel brake. The wheel brake control units implement the control signal from the brake system control unit, whereby the interaction of the individual control units is coordinated or specified via the brake system control unit” here the individuals units teaches at least two control units which are coordinated/specified by the brake system control unit i.e. vehicle regulator);” wherein each brake control unit is configured to calculate preprocessing data from the pedal sensor data and to provide preprocessing date to the vehicle regulator via a signal connection, and wherein the vehicle regulator is configured to calculate control information for all electromechanical wheel brakes based on the preprocessing data and to transmit said control information to the wheel brakes via at least one signal connection;”( The brake system control unit 22 is redundantly connected to a unit 26 for detecting a brake request from the driver of the motor vehicle, which includes a brake pedal sensor 27 and a parking brake 28.
From the brake request thus detected, the brake system control unit 22 generates a control signal for the wheel brake control units 11 to 14, for the coordinated control of the wheel brakes 7 to 10, via the communication system 21.
[0021] In addition, the wheel brake control units 11 to 14 are each directly connected to unit 26, in particular to the brake pedal sensor system 27 of unit 26, via separate connections 29” +
[0024] “Furthermore, the brake system control unit 22 provides a redundant implementation of functions of the wheel brake control units 11 to 14, as test or operational redundancy.
Functions at the overall braking system level, such as driver request detection, brake request coordination functions, and monitoring or plausibility checks of sensor and control variable information, are particularly well-suited for this purpose” here teaches redundant function include plausibility checking (i.e. pre-processing data) from redundant it is known that the control units are configured to also perform/collect this pre-processing information)” and at least two primary wheel brake modules for arrangement on one vehicle wheel,”([0018] “Fig. 1 shows a schematic representation of an embodiment of an electric braking system 1, which is designed as an electromechanical braking system 2. The electric braking system 1 is intended for a motor vehicle comprising four wheels 3, 4, 5 and 6 to be braked, wherein wheels 3 and 5 are located on a front axle and wheels 4 and 6 are located on a rear axle of the motor vehicle. Each of the wheels 3 to 6 is assigned an electromechanically operated wheel brake 7 , 8 , 9 and 10 of the braking system 1. Each of the wheel brakes 7 to 10 also has a control unit in the form of a wheel brake control unit 11, 12, 13 or 14 respectively. The wheel brakes 7 and 9 and their wheel brake control units 11 and 13 are connected to a first energy supply 15 in the form of a rechargeable energy storage device 16.
The wheel brakes 8 and 10 and their wheel brake control units 12 and 14 are connected to an energy supply 17 independent of the first energy supply 15 in the form of a rechargeable energy storage device 18. With regard to the power supply, two independent brake circuits are provided, the components of which are marked with reference numerals 19 and 20 respectively”)” wherein one of the electromechanical wheel brakes and one associated brake control unit are integrated; wherein the pedal sensor is connected to both brake control units via in each case a separate brake request signal line.”([0021] “In addition, the wheel brake control units 11 to 14 are each directly connected to unit 26, in particular to the brake pedal sensor system 27 of unit 26, via separate connections 29.” + from figure 1 below the control units 11-14 are integrated with respective wheel brakes)
PNG
media_image1.png
402
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Weiberle teaches “The brake system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the two primary wheel brake modules are assigned to one axle of the vehicle and at least one basic control unit is assigned to the two other electromechanical wheel brakes on the other axle of the vehicle to receive control information and to control at least one of the other electromechanical wheel brakes.”([0026] “The embodiment shown in Fig. 2 differs from the previous embodiment in that the brake system control unit 22 is arranged between the brake circuits 19 and 20. Each brake circuit 19, 20 has its own communication system 33, 34, which is connected to the brake system control unit 22. The communication systems 33 and 34 are independent of each other and are physically separated from each other by the brake system control unit 22, which acts as a gateway control unit.” From figure 2 it can be seen that each independent circuit controls two brakes/one axle each)
PNG
media_image2.png
384
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Weiberle teaches “The brake system as claimed in claim 4, wherein the at least one basic control unit can be supplied with control information by both brake control units via separate signal lines during operation.”(from figure 2 above separate lines from the control units (11-14) have separate communication lines 33-36 respectively)
Regarding Claim 8, Weiberle teaches “The brake system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the vehicle regulator is configured to transmit the control information for all electromechanical wheel brakes to the brake control units via a signal line, and wherein the brake control units are each configured to forward the control information to the four electromechanical wheel brakes.”([0020] “The brake system control unit 22 is redundantly connected to a unit 26 for detecting a brake request from the driver of the motor vehicle, which includes a brake pedal sensor 27 and a parking brake 28.
From the brake request thus detected, the brake system control unit 22 generates a control signal for the wheel brake control units 11 to 14, for the coordinated control of the wheel brakes 7 to 10, via the communication system 21.” + figures 1-2, the braking control system coordinates (sends control information to brake control units via signals lines) control signals with the brake control units (then control the electromechanical wheel brakes))
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiberle as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20060232128 A1, (US equivalent to DE10316452), Weiberle et al; (as both have same inventor name this secondary reference will be referred to as 128A1)
Regarding Claim 2, Weiberle does teach multiple pedal sensors ([0002] “To detect a driver's braking request, a unit is usually provided which includes, for example,brake pedal sensors…”); it is however mute as to what those sensors are.
128A1 teaches a similar electro-mechanical braking system which includes redundant types of pedal sensors, teaching “wherein the brake pedal comprises at least two pedal sensors which determine two different measurement variables”( [0006] “Within this electromechanical braking system design, shown with reference to FIG. 4, four diversified sensors S1 to S4 are provided for the acquisition of the actuation of a brake actuation device (not shown), respectively determining for example the pedal path and the pedal angle.” From “diversified” );” from: a force sensor, a travel sensor, an angle sensor, and wherein at least signals from two pedal sensors, are transmitted to each of the brake control units during operation.”( [0021] FIG. 1 schematically shows a block diagram of an electrical braking system that has four sensors S1, S2, S3, and S4. The four sensors S1 to S4 determine an actuation of a brake actuating device (not shown), such as, for example, a brake pedal, that is actuated by a user of the vehicle. The four sensors S1 to S4 all detect the same parameters, such as, for example, a pedal path and a pedal angle: Intelligent wheel braking modules 10, which are provided with a device 11 for determining the brake demand or a desired braking (brake demand distribution), are each connected with one of the four sensors S1 to S4 via an electrical line 12. Four wheels 13 are connected to wheel braking modules 10 or wheel braking devices (not shown) connected therewith” pedal angel teaches an angle sensor and pedal path teaches a displacement/travel sensor)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Weiberle et al to include the multiple pedal sensor system as taught by 128A1. One would be motivated to do such in order to allow for plausibility checking even in the event of a common mode failure. ([0008] In comparison with the known approach, the electrical, decentralized braking system according to the present invention has the advantage that, even after a common mode error or after the occurrence of two simple errors, at least a part of the wheel modules can test for plausibility of sensor values through comparison with at least one additional sensor value, thus ensuring safety against a second error)
Regarding Claim 3, modified Weiberle teaches “The brake system as claimed in claim 2, wherein the brake pedal comprises at least two redundant pedal sensors which each determine the same measurement variable, and wherein signals from each of the at least two redundant pedal sensors can be transmitted to in each case one brake control unit during operation.”(128 [0026] ”The decentralized system for acquiring a user brake request according to the second example embodiment thus has exactly two of the four sensors S1 to S4 connected to each of the four wheel modules. Alternatively, embodiments are also conceivable in which more than four physical sensors S1, S2, . . . , are allocated in pairs to the four wheel braking modules 10. The advantage of the proposed second example embodiment is that even after the occurrence of two independent simple errors or the occurrence of a common mode error in communication system 14, 14'', wheel braking modules 10 are indeed no longer able to communicate with one another, but a necessary and reliable test for plausibility of the sensor values of sensors S1 to S4 can nonetheless take place via the additional redundant system of the two local sensors S1 to S4.” Here teaches multiple redundant sensors for determining measurement values (plausibly checking))
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 10-16 provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 19/218,225(reference application) (corresponding publication US 20250360900 A1). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Regarding Application Claim 10, 225 claims “A method for controlling a brake system comprising: transmitting pedal sensor data indicative of a pedal actuation of a brake pedal, to at least one brake control unit “(225 Claim 1, “A method for controlling a braking system comprising: transmitting pedal-sensor data indicative of pedal actuation of an electronic brake pedal from at least one pedal sensor of the brake pedal to at least one brake control unit;”);” calculating preprocessing data with at least one brake control unit;”(225 Claim 1: “calculating preprocessing data with the at least one brake control unit,”);” ;transmitting the preprocessing data from the at least one brake control unit to a vehicle regulator via a signal connection”(225 Claim 1: “transmitting the preprocessing data with the at least one brake control unit to a vehicle controller of a motor vehicle via a signal link”);” calculating control information for electromechanical wheel brakes from the preprocessing data in the vehicle regulator;”(225 Claim 1: “calculating control information for at least one electromechanical wheel brake from the preprocessing data in the vehicle controller;”);” transmitting the control information for all the electromechanical wheel brakes to the at least one brake control unit;”(225 Claim 1: “transmitting the control information for the at least one electromechanical wheel brake to at least one brake control unit;”);” determining, with at least one brake control unit whether the control information received from the vehicle regulator is below a safety threshold; and overwriting the control information, with the at least one brake control unit, before forwarding to the control information to electromechanical wheel brakes when the control information received from the vehicle regulator is below the safety threshold.”(225 Claim 1: “determining with the at least one brake control unit whether the control information received from the vehicle controller falls below a safety threshold before forwarding the control information to the at least one electromechanical wheel brake; and overwriting the control information before forwarding it to the at least one electromechanical wheel brake when the control information is below the safety threshold.”)
Regarding Application Claim 11, 225 claims “The method as claimed in claim 10, wherein the safety threshold is defined by a characteristic curve which is dependent on the pedal sensor data, wherein the characteristic curve is stored locally in the at least one brake control unit.”(225 Claim 2: “The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the safety threshold is defined by a characteristic curve that is dependent on the pedal-sensor data, the characteristic curve being stored locally in the at least one brake control unit.”)
Regarding Application Claim 12, 225 claims “The method as claimed in claim 10, further comprising automatically calculating secondary control information from the pedal sensor data and using the secondary control information to overwrite the control information when the control information is below the safety threshold.”(225 Claim 4: “The method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: automatically calculating secondary control information from the pedal-sensor data with the at least one brake control unit; and using this secondary control information for overwriting the control information received from the vehicle controller when control information is below the safety threshold.”)
Regarding Application claim 13, 225 claims “The method as claimed in claim 10, wherein the determining the control information received from the vehicle regulator is below a safety threshold is carried out by two brake control units.”(225 Claim 5: “The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one brake control unit is two brake control unit and at least one method step is carried out in parallel in the two brake control units.”)
Regarding Application Claim 14, 225 claims “. The method as claimed in one of claims 13, determining the safety threshold on the basis of a pedal-force-dependent, deceleration characteristic curve, wherein the safety threshold is below the deceleration characteristic curve by a constant deceleration value.”(225 Claims 2-3, Claim 2: “wherein the safety threshold is defined by a characteristic curve that is dependent on the pedal-sensor data, the characteristic curve being stored locally in the at least one brake control unit. “ + Claim 3 which depends and thus has claim 2’s limitations “The method as claimed claim 2, wherein the deceleration characteristic curve is dependent on pedal force, and wherein the safety threshold lies below the deceleration characteristic curve by a constant deceleration value.”)
Regarding Application Claim 15, 225 Claims “The method as claimed in claim 10, further comprising overwriting of the control information when the control information is below the safety threshold until one of:new control information from the vehicle regulator is above the safety threshold;the end of the current braking process is determined or the start of a new braking process is determined; andthe end of the current driving cycle of the vehicle is determined or the start of a new driving cycle of the vehicle is determined.”(225 Claim 6: “The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the overwriting of the control information further comprises the overwriting being carried out until one of: new control information from the vehicle controller is above the safety threshold; one of an end of a present braking operation is detected and a start of a new braking operation is detected; and one of an end of a present driving cycle of the vehicle is detected and a start of a new driving cycle of the vehicle is detected.”)
Regarding Application Claim 16, 225 Claims “The method as claimed in one of claims 10, wherein the overwriting of the control information before forwarding to the electromechanical wheel brakes takes place only when the control information received from the vehicle regulator undershoots the safety threshold for a predetermined minimum duration.”( 225 Claim 7: The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the overwriting of the control information only when the control information received from the vehicle controller continuously falls below the safety threshold for a predetermined minimum duration.)
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-9 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8-20 of copending Application No. 19/218225(reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while 225’s claim introduce/claim limitations in different dependencies compared to the current application’s claims and in different ranges/quantitites, the reference application claims overall the same limitations in one form or another such that 225’s claims render obvious the current applications claim.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding Application Claim 1, 225 claims “A brake system for a motor vehicle, comprising a brake pedal having at least one pedal sensor for capturing a driver brake request from pedal sensor data;”(225 Claim 8: “A braking system for a motor vehicle comprising: a brake pedal having at least one pedal sensor for detecting a braking request from the driver by means of pedal-sensor data;”);” four electromechanical wheel brakes;”(Claim 8: “at least one electromechanical wheel brake” at least one covers four brakes in the range it claims);” a vehicle regulator;”(225 Claim 8: “…and a vehicle controller of the motor vehicle..”);” at least two brake control units, wherein each brake control unit is configured to calculate preprocessing data from the pedal sensor data and to provide preprocessing date to the vehicle regulator via a signal connection,”( 225 Claim 8 ;”at least one brake control unit configured to calculate preprocessing data from the pedal-sensor data;” Here at least one includes/covers “at least two”);” and wherein the vehicle regulator is configured to calculate control information for all electromechanical wheel brakes based on the preprocessing data and to transmit said control information to the wheel brakes via at least one signal connection;”( 225 Claim 8;”and a vehicle controller of the motor vehicle which receives the preprocessing data from the at least one brake control unit via a signal link and is configured to calculate control information for at least one electromechanical wheel brake on the basis of the preprocessing data and to transmit the control information to the at least one wheel brake via at least one signal link);” and at least two primary wheel brake modules for arrangement on one vehicle wheel wherein one of the electromechanical wheel brakes and one associated brake control unit are integrated;”(225 Claim 11: “The braking system as claimed in claim 8, further comprising two primary wheel-brake modules which are designed to be arranged on a respective vehicle wheel and in each of which one of the electromechanical wheel brakes and an assigned brake control unit are integrated.”);” wherein the pedal sensor is connected to both brake control units via in each case a separate brake request signal line.”(225 Claim 10: “The braking system as claimed in claim 9, wherein the pedal sensor is connected to both brake control units via a respective separate braking-request signal line.”)
Regarding Application Claim 2, 225 Claims “The brake system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the brake pedal comprises at least two pedal sensors which determine two different measurement variables from: a force sensor, a travel sensor, an angle sensor, and wherein at least signals from two pedal sensors, are transmitted to each of the brake control units during operation.”(225 Claims 12-13: “The braking system as claimed claim 8, wherein the brake pedal comprises at least two pedal sensors which determine two different measurement variables to be transmitted during operation to each of the brake control units.” + “The braking system as claimed claim 12, wherein the at least two pedal sensors are one of a force sensor, a displacement sensor, and an angle sensor” )
Regarding Application Claim 3, 225 claims “The brake system as claimed in claim 2, wherein the brake pedal comprises at least two redundant pedal sensors which each determine the same measurement variable, and wherein signals from each of the at least two redundant pedal sensors can be transmitted to in each case one brake control unit during operation.”(225 Claim 14: “The braking system as claimed in 9, wherein the brake pedal comprises at least two redundant pedal sensors which determine the same measurement variable to be transmitted during operation to a respective brake control unit”)
Regarding Application Claim 4, 225 Claims ” The brake system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the two primary wheel brake modules are assigned to one axle of the vehicle and at least one basic control unit is assigned to the two other electromechanical wheel brakes on the other axle of the vehicle to receive control information and to control at least one of the other electromechanical wheel brakes”(225 Claim 16:” The braking system as claimed in claim 11, wherein two primary wheel-brake modules are assigned to one axle of the vehicle and at least one basic control unit is assigned to two further electromechanical wheel brakes on the other axle of the vehicle, which basic control unit is designed to receive control information and to control at least one of the two further electromechanical wheel brakes”)
Regarding Application Claim 5, 225 claims “The brake system as claimed in claim 4, wherein the at least one basic control unit can be supplied with control information by both brake control units via separate signal lines during operation.” (225 Claim 17, “The braking system as claimed in claim 14, wherein the at least one basic control unit is supplied with control information from both brake control units via separate signal lines during operation.”)
Regarding Application Claim 6, 225 claims “The brake system as claimed in claim 4, wherein the brake system comprises two secondary wheel brake modules each for arrangement on one vehicle wheel and in which in each case one of the other electromechanical wheel brakes and in each case one assigned basic control unit are integrated, wherein each of the basic control units is designed to receive control information and to control the assigned electromechanical wheel brake.”(225 Claim 18, “The braking system as claimed in claim 16, wherein the braking system comprises two secondary wheel-brake modules which are designed to be arranged on a respective vehicle wheel and in each of which one of the two further electromechanical wheel brakes and an assigned basic control unit are integrated, each of the basic control units being designed to receive control information and to control the assigned electromechanical wheel brake.”)
Regarding Application Claim 7, 225 Claims “The brake system as claimed in claim 6, wherein both basic control units can be supplied with control information by both brake control units via separate signal lines during operation.”(225 Claim 19, “The braking system as claimed in claim 18,wherein both basic control units are supplied with control information from both brake control units via separate signal lines during operation.”)
Regarding Application Claim 8, 225 Claims “The brake system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the vehicle regulator is configured to transmit the control information for all electromechanical wheel brakes to the brake control units via a signal line, and wherein the brake control units are each configured to forward the control information to the four electromechanical wheel brakes.”(225 Claim 20 “The braking system as claimed in claim 8, wherein the vehicle controller is configured to transmit the control information for at least one electromechanical wheel brake to the brake control unit via a signal line, the brake control unit being configured to forward the control information to the at least one electromechanical wheel brake.” At least one covers four)
Regarding Application Claim 9, 225 Claims “The brake system as claimed in claim 8, wherein at least one brake control unit is configured to check the control information for the electromechanical wheel brakes that is received from the vehicle regulator before forwarding and to overwrite the control information when the control information is below the safety threshold.”(225 Claim 8: “…wherein at least one brake control unit is configured to determine whether the control information received from the vehicle controller falls below a safety thresholdbefore forwarding the control information to the at least one electromechanical wheel brake; and to overwrite the control information before forwarding it to the at least one electromechanical wheel brake when the control information is below the safety threshold.”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20250296544 A1; WO 2021078673 A1; US 20230415717 A1; US 20220340118 A1; US 20050278107 A1;
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MICHAEL DUNNE whose telephone number is (571)270-7392. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:30-6:30.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/KENNETH M DUNNE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights