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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 20-Jan-2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-12 and 18-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding independent claim 1, the phrase “mechanically pressing the brake lining against the friction surface” is considered new matter. The original specification only discloses that “[t]he friction brakes 1a-1d are electromechanical brakes, i.e. those in which an electric motor acts directly on the brake linings via a gear mechanism” (see ¶ 0042). The term “mechanical” is broader than the disclosed electromechanical brakes. For purposes of examination, the phrase “mechanical” will be interpreted as being or including “electromechanical.”
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 12 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 12, the phrase “a first and a second friction brake” is indefinite because it is unclear whether either of the first and second friction brakes are the same element as the previously recited “friction brake” (see claim 1).
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 1-3, 5, 8-11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamiya et al. (US 2004/0183366).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kamiya discloses a method for reducing unwanted vibrations in a friction brake (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-9), wherein the friction brake has at least one friction surface (see ¶ 0070, “disc brake”) and at least one brake lining (see ¶ 0071, “pad”) associated with the friction surface, and wherein the method comprises the following steps: a) mechanically pressing the brake lining against the friction surfacsee ¶ 0070, “a disc brake or drum brake that is driven by this motor”) with a clamping force in order to convert a braking request into a braking force (see ¶ 0070), and b) modulating a temporal fluctuation onto the clamping force in order to avoid or reduce unwanted vibrations (see ¶ 0070, “dither current is superimposed”), wherein the modulated fluctuation oscillates at a frequency of approximately 0.1 Hz to 250 Hz (see ¶ 0053, “1 kHz or lower”).
Regarding claim 2, Kamiya discloses that the clamping force remains substantially unchanged by the modulated fluctuation on average over time (see ¶ 0093).
Regarding claim 3, Kamiya discloses that the modulated fluctuation has a continuous curve (see ¶ 0055).
Regarding claim 5, Kamiya discloses that the frequency of the modulated fluctuation changes over time (see ¶¶ 0084-0086, 0093), and has alternating positive and negative chirps as the clamping force increases (see FIG. 6B).
Regarding claim 8, Kamiya discloses that the method further comprises the following steps: c) detecting a braking state which is susceptible to vibrations and in which unwanted vibrations can occur (see ¶¶ 0074-0082, 0094), and d) modulating the temporal fluctuation onto the clamping force when the braking state that is susceptible to vibrations is detected (see ¶ 0086).
Regarding claim 9, Kamiya discloses the detection of a braking state that is susceptible to vibrations includes evaluating a sensor signal from a sensor (see ¶¶ 0074-0082, 0090).
Regarding claim 10, Kamiya discloses that the evaluation of the sensor signal includes a determination of the frequency, amplitude and/or phase position of dominant unwanted vibrations in the friction brake (see ¶¶ 0074, 0075, 0091, 0094).
Regarding claim 11, Kamiya discloses that a curve of the modulated fluctuation is formed on the basis of the frequency, amplitude and/or phase position of one or more dominant unwanted vibrations in the friction brake (see ¶ 0084, 0090, 0091).
Regarding claim 13, Kamiya discloses a braking system for a land vehicle (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-9), comprising a controller (53), an energy source (see ¶ 0069, “current to be supplied”) and at least one friction brake (see ¶ 0070) with an associated actuator (55a-55d), wherein the actuator is designed to press a brake lining (see ¶ 0071, “brake pad”) of the friction brake against an associated friction surface of the friction brake with a clamping force (see ¶ 0071), wherein the energy source is designed to supply the actuator with energy (see ¶ 0069), and wherein the controller is designed to control the actuator (see ¶ 0069) to a) press the brake lining against the friction surface with a clamping force in order to convert a braking request into a braking force (see ¶ 0069), and b) modulate a temporal fluctuation onto the clamping force in order to avoid or reduce unwanted vibrations (see ¶ 0071), wherein the modulated fluctuation oscillates at a frequency greater than 0.1 Hz and of no more than 250 Hz (see ¶ 0053, “1 kHz or lower”).
Regarding claim 14, Kamiya discloses at least one friction brake is associated with a sensor (see ¶ 0095) which provides a sensor signal (see ¶ 0095), wherein the friction braksee ¶ 0095).
Regarding claim 15, Kamiya discloses that the friction brake is an electromechanical brake (see ¶ 0070).
Regarding claim 16, Kamiya discloses a program code comprising commands which, when executed by a controller (54), cause a braking system that includes at least one electromechanical friction brake (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-9; ¶ 0070, “a motor, and a disc brake or drum brake that is driven by this motor”) to carry out a method comprising: a) pressing the brake lining against the friction surfacsee ¶ 0070), and b) modulating a temporal fluctuation onto the clamping force in order to avoid or reduce unwanted vibrations (see ¶ 0070, “dither current is superimposed”), wherein the modulated fluctuation oscillates at a frequency greater than 0.1 Hz and of no more than 250 Hz (see ¶ 0053, “1 kHz or lower”).
Regarding claim 17, Kamiya discloses the braking system comprises the controller (53), an energy source (see ¶ 0069, “current to be supplied”) and at least one friction brake (see ¶ 0070) with an associated actuator (55a-55d), wherein the actuator is designed to press a brake lining (see ¶ 0071, “brake pad”) of the friction brake against an associated friction surface of the friction brake with a clamping force (see ¶ 0071), wherein the energy source is designed to supply the actuator with energy (see ¶ 0069), and wherein the controller is designed to control the actuator (see ¶ 0069).
Regarding claim 18, Kamiya discloses that the curve of the modulated fluctuation is a continuous substantially sinusoidal curve (see ¶ 0055).
Regarding claim 19, Kamiya discloses that the modulated fluctuation oscillates at a frequency of approximately 3 Hz to 70 Hz (see ¶ 0053).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiya et al. (US 2004/0183366), as applied to claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 6, Kamiya does not disclose that an amplitude of the modulated fluctuation is at most 50% of the clamping force.
However, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (See MPEP 2144.05.II.A) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
In the present case, Kamiya recognizes that changing the amplitude of the modulated fluctuation is a result-effective variable (see ¶¶ 0085, 0086). Kamiya further recognizes that “a required braking force based on each target current is secured” (see ¶ 0093). Therefore, it would have been a matter of routine experimentation to optimize the modulated fluctuation to at most 50% of the clamping force to reduce noise generated by the brake (see ¶¶ 0085, 0086) while maintaining a required braking force based on each target current (see ¶ 0093).
Regarding claim 20, Kamiya does not disclose that an amplitude of the modulated fluctuation is at most 35% of the clamping force.
However, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (See MPEP 2144.05.II.A) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
In the present case, Kamiya recognizes that changing the amplitude of the modulated fluctuation is a result-effective variable (see ¶¶ 0085, 0086). Kamiya further recognizes that “a required braking force based on each target current is secured” (see ¶ 0093). Therefore, it would have been a matter of routine experimentation to optimize the modulated fluctuation to at most 35% of the clamping force to reduce noise generated by the brake (see ¶¶ 0085, 0086) while maintaining a required braking force based on each target current (see ¶ 0093).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiya et al. (US 2004/0183366), as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Continental (WO 2009/024454) (machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 7, Kamiya does not disclose that an amplitude of the modulated fluctuation changes as the clamping force increases.
Continental teaches a method for reducing unwanted vibrations in a friction brake (see ¶ 0010), wherein an amplitude of a modulated fluctuation changes as the clamping force increases (see ¶¶ 0017, 0033).
It would have been obvious to configure Kamiya such that an amplitude of a modulated fluctuation changes as the clamping force increases, as taught by Continental, to effectively damp the vibrations generated as the braking force increases.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiya et al. (US 2004/0183366), as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Masuda (US 2016/0129895).
Regarding claim 12, Kamiya discloses a friction brake pair having a first and a second friction brake (55a, 55b), wherein the first and the second friction brake are each operated with the method for reducing unwanted vibrations according to claim 1 (see ¶ 0093).
Kamiya does not disclose that the respective modulated fluctuations have an antiphase curve.
Masuda teaches a method of braking a friction pair (see ¶ 0028) wherein respective modulated fluctuations have an antiphase curve (see ¶ 0028).
It would have been obvious to operate the modulated fluctuations of respective wheels of Kamiya such that modulated fluctuations have an antiphase curve so that the fluctuations cancel each other, thereby providing a constant braking force for the vehicle (see Masuda, ¶ 0028).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ying (US 2019/0001943) discloses superimposing a “ripple braking signal” on a braking signal in the range of about 50-200 Hz (see ¶¶ 0018, 0020) to eliminate a wheel hop condition (see ¶ 0021).
Karpenko (US 9,821,781) discloses applying a sinusoidal waveform having a frequency of 100 Hz (see col. 10, lines 22-26) to modulate a braking force (see col. 1, lines 30-34) to correct or compensate for a brake pad misalignment and/or other non-ideal characteristics and relationships between braking components within the brake assembly that may cause erratic, fluctuating, and/or unstable frictional engagement between braking components within the brake assembly, thereby reducing or eliminating the poor braking performance and brake pedal feel that would have otherwise occurred (see col. 11, lines 57-65).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20-Jan-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive
Regarding the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Applicant argues that “the specification makes clear that the method can be applied to each individual brake” (see Amendment, page 6). Whether or not the method can be applied to each individual brake was not the basis of the rejection. Rather, the rejection was based on claim 1 reciting “a friction brake” and claim 12 subsequently reciting “a first and a second friction brake.” It remains unclear whether the “first and second friction brake” of claim 12 include or are distinct from the previously recited “friction brake” of claim 1.
Regarding independent claims 1, 13 and 16, Applicant argues that “no where does Kamiya teach the range cited in claim 1, which is purposely lower than the [disclosed] 500 HZ” (see Amendment, page 7). Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Kamiya provides a broad disclosure of a frequency of “1kHz or lower” (see ¶ 0053).
Applicant further argues that “[t]he broad statement 1 kHz or lower is not an enabling disclosure of the claimed range” (see Amendment, page 7). Applicant does not provide any elaboration as to why this disclosure is not enabling. One of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of setting a dither frequency at 250 Hz or lower, just as they would be capable of setting the dither frequency at 500 Hz.
Applicant further argues that “the claimed method requires modulating temporal fluctuation onto the clamping force itself, which is not disclosed by Kamiya” (see Amendment, page 7). Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Kamiya explicitly discloses “when target current onto which dither current is superimposed is supplied from the ECU 53, the brake driving actuators 55a to 55d generate braking force that is proportional to the target current” (see ¶ 0070).
Regarding claim 16, Applicant further argues that “while Kamiya’s third embodiment mentions an ECU controlling actuators (see, e.g. paragraph [0070]), it does not disclose or suggest a program code that performs the claimed steps recited in claim 16” (see Amendment, page 8). Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Kamiya explicitly discloses a method (see ¶ 0087) that is performed by the ECU (see ¶¶ 0029, 0041). Furthermore, Kamiya makes multiple references to “processing” that is performed by the ECU (see ¶¶ 0016-0018, 0024, 0041-0043, 0046-0048, 0050, 0051, 0059-0061, 0089-0090), thereby implying the presence of a program code that is executed by the ECU.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J LANE whose telephone number is (571)270-5988. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at (571)272-7124. 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.
/NICHOLAS J LANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
March 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights