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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 09/26/2025. Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15 are considered in this office action. Claims 1-2, 7, 10-11, 13, and 15 have been amended. Claims 5 and 14 have been cancelled. Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15 are pending examination. Objections to claims 13-14 and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 2 and 13 have been withdrawn in light of the instant amendments. This action is made final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following arguments regarding the previous office action:
“…[N]o portion of Kindler discloses that, when a single EPB is operated, the clamping force is determined based on the clamping force required when both the first and second EPBs are simultaneously operated for parking.”
“Kindler does not disclose or suggest Applicant's claimed feature of: "operate alone any one of the first and second EPBs in response to determining that the gradient of the vehicle is lower than the predetermined angle and the driver's continuous driving intention exists."”
Applicant's arguments A.-B. have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument A. that “…[N]o portion of Kindler discloses that, when a single EPB is operated, the clamping force is determined based on the clamping force required when both the first and second EPBs are simultaneously operated for parking,” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kindler teaches based on the road inclination being smaller than a threshold value, a single EPB actuator is selected and a clamping force is defined for the selected EPB actuator (Kindler, Par. [0066]). The clamping force would be defined in such a way as to ensure the design incentive that the vehicle would not experience rollback and would be held stationary. Kindler also teaches defining a clamping force when both EPBs are operated (Kindler, Par. [0067]). One of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the above stated design incentives, could have implemented claimed variation of defining the clamping force for an EPB when a single EPB is used based on the clamping force when both EPBs are used and the variation would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, Examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the above stated limitation obvious in view of the teachings of Kindler.
Regarding Applicant’s argument B. that “Kindler does not disclose or suggest Applicant's claimed feature of: "operate alone any one of the first and second EPBs in response to determining that the gradient of the vehicle is lower than the predetermined angle and the driver's continuous driving intention exists,"” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kindler teaches the ECU selects one of the two EPB actuators 13, 43 to be operated if there is an intention to start (or the absence of an intention to start), the service brake is in an actuation state, the vehicle is in a stationary state (i.e., indications of whether a driver’s continuous driving intention exists), and a road inclination (vehicle gradient) is lower that a first threshold value), where the intention to start sensor system 84 detects an actuation of a gear level or automatic gear selection device (Kindler, Fig. 1 and 3 and Par. [0052]-[0053], [0056], and [0058]-[0059]). In other words, Kindler teaches operating one of the two EPBs alone in response to determining the vehicle gradient is lower than a predetermined threshold and there is a driver’s intention to start. Therefore, Examiner maintains that the above stated limitation is taught by Kindler.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 line 1 “comprises” should read “comprising”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 12 and 15 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 12 line 1 and claim 15 line 2, the term “an EPB” is unclear. It is unclear if the term “an EPB” is referring to the “EPB” recited previously in the claim or a different “EPB.” Therefore, the claim is rendered indefinite.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. While the wording is slightly different between the limitation of claim 1 (“in response to a gear being shifted to a P-stage) and claim 2 (“whenever the gear is shifted to the P-stage”), the meaning of the limitation is the same; if the gear is shifted to a P-stage (whenever or in response to), the controller determines an EPB that is to be operated. Thus, the subject matter of claim 1 is not further limited. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-4, 6-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinder et al. (US 2018/0215355 A1) in view of Forster et al. (US 2016/0355165 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kinder teaches “An electronic parking brake (EPB) system (Fig. 1 and Par. [0035] teach a motor vehicle braking system comprising at least two EPB actuators), comprising:
a first EPB provided on a left wheel of a vehicle (Fig. 1 and Par. [0043] teach EPB actuator 13 assigned to front left wheel VL);
a second EPB provided on a right wheel of the vehicle (Fig. 1 and Par. [0043] teach EPB actuator 43 assigned to front right wheel VR); and
a controller (Fig. 2 shows ECU comprising processor 70 and memory 72) configured to:
determine an EPB that is to be operated alone from among the first and second EPBs in response to a gear being shifted (Fig. 3 and Par. [0062]-[0063] teach if it is determined by the intention to start sensor system 84 in step S160 that no start-up of the vehicle is intended, an activation of a single one of the two EPB actuators 13, 43 takes place in step S180; Par. [0052] teaches the intention to start sensor system 84 detects an actuation of a gear level or automatic gear selection device), and
operate the determined EPB alone (Fig. 3 and Par. [0064] teach in step S180 the control unit EUC selects the one of the two EPB actuators 13, 43 that is to be activated),
wherein, when the determined EPB is operated alone, the controller is configured to:
determine a clamping force required when the first and second EPBs are simultaneously operated for parking, and
operate the determined EPB based on the determined clamping force (Kinder, Fig. 3 and Par. [0066]-[0067] teach generating different clamping forces according to the actuation of the two EPB actuators 13, 43 when actuated alone or together; One of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the design incentives that the vehicle would not experience rollback and would be held stationary, could have implemented claimed variation of defining the clamping force for an EPB when a single EPB is used based on the clamping force when both EPBs are used and the variation would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.).”
However, Kinder does not explicitly teach determining an EPB is to be operated in response to a gear being shifted “to a P-stage.”
From the same field of endeavor regarding activating a vehicle braking system, Forster teaches determining an EPB is to be operated in response to a gear being shifted “to a P-stage (Fig. 2 shows service brake and parking brake being activated in response to the driver selecting parking position P).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the teachings of Kinder to incorporated the teachings of Forster with a reasonable expectation of success to determine an EPB is to be operated as taught by Kinder in response to a gear being shift to a P-stage as taught by Forster.
The motivation for doing so would be to secure a parked vehicle against rolling away (Forster, Par. [0003]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kinder and Forster teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches “wherein the controller is configured to determine the EPB that is to be operated alone among the first and second EPBs whenever the gear is shifted to the P-stage (Kinder, Fig. 3 and Par. [0062]-[0063] teach if it is determined by the intention to start sensor system 84 in step S160 that no start-up of the vehicle is intended, an activation of a single one of the two EPB actuators 13, 43 takes place in step S180; Par. [0052] teaches the intention to start sensor system 84 detects an actuation of a gear level or automatic gear selection device) (Forster, Fig. 2 shows service brake and parking brake being activated in response to the driver selecting parking position P).”
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kinder and Forster above teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches “wherein the controller is configured to stop a previously operated EPB among the first and second EPBs, and operate a previously non-operated EPB (Kinder, Par. [0064]-[0065] teaches selecting one of the two EPB actuators 13, 43 based on the history of the two EPB actuators 13, 43 and can be specifically selected alternately, for example).”
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kinder and Forster above teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches “wherein the controller is configured to, in response to that a driver shifts the gear to the P-stage, determine whether a gradient of the vehicle is lower than a predetermined angle and a driver’s continuous driving intention exists, and determine the EPB that is to be operated alone from among the first and second EPBs in response to determining that the gradient of the vehicle is lower than the predetermine angle and the driver’s continuous driving intention exists (Kinder, Fig. 1 and 3 and Par. [0052]-[0053], [0056], and [0058]-[0059] teaches the ECU selects one of the two EPB actuators 13, 43 to be operated if there is an intention to start (or the absence of an intention to start), the service brake is in an actuation state, the vehicle is in a stationary state (i.e., indications of whether a driver’s continuous driving intention exists), and a road inclination (vehicle gradient) is lower that a first threshold value) (Forster, Fig. 2 shows service brake and parking brake being activated in response to the driver selecting parking position P).”
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kinder and Forster above teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches “wherein the controller is configured to determine whether a stand-alone operation release condition is satisfied during the determined EPB operating alone, and in response to that the stand-alone operation release condition is satisfied, operate additionally an EPB that has not been operated (Kinder, Fig. 6 and Par. [0072]-[0074] teach after activation of one of two EPB actuators 13, 43, determining if rolling or sliding away of the vehicle is detected and if so, both EPB actuators 13, 43 are activated).”
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kinder and Forster above teaches all the limitations of claim 6 above, and further teaches “wherein the controller is configured to determine that the stand-alone operation release condition is satisfied when at least one of that: a slip of vehicle occurs, an ignition switch is off, or an EPB switch is on is satisfied (Kinder, Par. [0072]-[0074] teaches determining if rolling or sliding (slipping) away of the vehicle is occurring when one of the two EPB actuators 13, 43 is activated).”
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kinder and Forster above teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches “wherein the controller is configured to store identification information of the EPB operated alone in a memory (Kinder, Par. [0064] teaches storing actuation history of the two EPB actuators 13, 43 in memory 72).”
Regarding claim 9, Kinder teaches “An electronic parking brake (EPB) system of a vehicle equipped with an electronic transmission system (Fig. 1 and Par. [0035] teach a motor vehicle braking system comprising at least two EPB actuators), comprising:
a first EPB provided on a left wheel of a vehicle (Fig. 1 and Par. [0043] teach EPB actuator 13 assigned to front left wheel VL);
a second EPB provided on a right wheel of the vehicle (Fig. 1 and Par. [0043] teach EPB actuator 43 assigned to front right wheel VR); and
a controller (Fig. 2 shows ECU comprising processor 70 and memory 72) configured to:
when a gear of the electronic transmission system is shifted, determine whether a gradient of the vehicle is lower than a predetermined angle and a driver’s continuous driving intention exists, and operate alone any one of the first and second EPBs in response to determining that the gradient of the vehicle is lower than the predetermined angle and the driver’s continuous driving intention exists (Fig. 1 and 3 and Par. [0052]-[0053], [0056], and [0058]-[0059] teaches the ECU selects one of the two EPB actuators 13, 43 to be operated if there is an intention to start (or the absence of an intention to start), the service brake is in an actuation state, the vehicle is in a stationary state (i.e., indications of whether a driver’s continuous driving intention exists), and a road inclination (vehicle gradient) is lower that a first threshold value); Par. [0052] teaches the intention to start sensor system 84 detects an actuation of a gear level or automatic gear selection device).”
However, Kinder does not explicitly teach determining an EPB is to be operated in response to a gear being shifted “to a P-stage.”
From the same field of endeavor regarding activating a vehicle braking system, Forster teaches determining an EPB is to be operated in response to a gear being shifted “to a P-stage (Fig. 2 shows service brake and parking brake being activated in response to the driver selecting parking position P).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the teachings of Kinder to incorporated the teachings of Forster with a reasonable expectation of success to determine an EPB is to be operated as taught by Kinder in response to a gear being shift to a P-stage as taught by Forster.
The motivation for doing so would be to secure a parked vehicle against rolling away (Forster, Par. [0003]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kinder and Forster above teaches all the limitations of claim 9 above, and further teaches “wherein the controller is configured to operate an EPB that is not operated alone among the first and second EPBs when shifting a previous P-stage (Kinder, Par. [0064]-[0065] teaches selecting one of the two EPB actuators 13, 43 based on the history of the two EPB actuators 13, 43 and can be specifically selected alternately, for example) (Forster, Fig. 2 shows service brake and parking brake being activated in response to the driver selecting parking position P).”
Regarding claim 11, Kinder teaches “A method of controlling an electronic parking brake (EPB) system (Fig. 1 and Par. [0035] teach a motor vehicle braking system comprising at least two EPB actuators), the EPB system comprising a first EPB provided on a left wheel of a vehicle (Fig. 1 and Par. [0043] teach EPB actuator 13 assigned to front left wheel VL) and a second EPB provided on a right wheel of the vehicle (Fig. 1 and Par. [0043] teach EPB actuator 43 assigned to front right wheel VR), the method comprising:
determining an EPB that is to be operated alone from among the first and second EPBs in response to that a gear is shifted (Fig. 3 and Par. [0062]-[0063] teach if it is determined by the intention to start sensor system 84 in step S160 that no start-up of the vehicle is intended, an activation of a single one of the two EPB actuators 13, 43 takes place in step S180; Par. [0052] teaches the intention to start sensor system 84 detects an actuation of a gear level or automatic gear selection device), and
operating the determined EPB alone (Fig. 3 and Par. [0064] teach in step S180 the control unit EUC selects the one of the two EPB actuators 13, 43 that is to be activated),
wherein operating the EPB alone comprises:
determining a clamping force required when the first and second EPBs are simultaneously operated for parking, and
operating the determined EPB based on the determined clamping force (Kinder, Fig. 3 and Par. [0066]-[0067] teach generating different clamping forces according to the actuation of the two EPB actuators 13, 43 when actuated alone or together; One of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the design incentives that the vehicle would not experience rollback and would be held stationary, could have implemented claimed variation of defining the clamping force for an EPB when a single EPB is used based on the clamping force when both EPBs are used and the variation would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.).”
However, Kinder does not explicitly teach determining an EPB is to be operated in response to a gear being shifted “to a P-stage.”
From the same field of endeavor regarding activating a vehicle braking system, Forster teaches determining an EPB is to be operated in response to a gear being shifted “to a P-stage (Fig. 2 shows service brake and parking brake being activated in response to the driver selecting parking position P).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the teachings of Kinder to incorporated the teachings of Forster with a reasonable expectation of success to determine an EPB is to be operated as taught by Kinder in response to a gear being shift to a P-stage as taught by Forster.
The motivation for doing so would be to secure a parked vehicle against rolling away (Forster, Par. [0003]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Kinder and Forster above teaches all the limitations of claim 11 above, and further teaches “wherein determining an EPB that is to be operated alone further comprises:
determining whether a gradient of the vehicle is lower than a predetermined angle and a driver’s continuous driving intention exists, and
determining the EPB that is to be operated alone from among the first and second EPBs in response to determining that the gradient of the vehicle is lower than the predetermined angle and the driver’s continuous driving intention exists (Kinder, Fig. 1 and 3 and Par. [0052]-[0053], [0056], and [0058]-[0059] teaches the ECU selects one of the two EPB actuators 13, 43 to be operated if there is an intention to start (or the absence of an intention to start), the service brake is in an actuation state, the vehicle is in a stationary state (i.e., indications of whether a driver’s continuous driving intention exists), and a road inclination (vehicle gradient) is lower that a first threshold value); Par. [0052] teaches the intention to start sensor system 84 detects an actuation of a gear level or automatic gear selection device).”
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Kinder and Forster above teaches all the limitations of claim 11 above, and further teaches “wherein determining the EPB that is to be operated alone further comprises stopping a previously operated EPB among the first and second EPBs, and determining the EPB to be operated alone for operating a previously non-operated EPB (Kinder, Par. [0064]-[0065] teaches selecting one of the two EPB actuators 13, 43 based on the history of the two EPB actuators 13, 43 and can be specifically selected alternately, for example).”
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Kinder and Forster above teaches all the limitations of claim 11 above, and further teaches “operating additionally an EPB that has not been operated when at least one of that: a slip of vehicle occurs, an ignition switch is off, or an EPB switch is on is satisfied during operating the determined EPB alone (Kinder, Par. [0072]-[0074] teaches determining if rolling or sliding (slipping) away of the vehicle is occurring when one of the two EPB actuators 13, 43 is activated).”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE M FITZHARRIS whose telephone number is (469)295-9147. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 6:00 pm M-Th.
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, CHRISTIAN CHACE can be reached at (571)272-4190. 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.
/K.M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights