Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 17/797,427

ELECTRONIC BRAKE SYSTEM AND CONTROL METHOD THEREFOR

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Aug 04, 2022
Examiner
BURCH, MELODY M
Art Unit
3616
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
HL Mando Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 8m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
658 granted / 1029 resolved
+11.9% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+25.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
51 currently pending
Career history
1080
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
43.9%
+3.9% vs TC avg
§102
23.9%
-16.1% vs TC avg
§112
27.8%
-12.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1029 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1, 3, 4, and 6-17 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. Re: claims 1 and 14. The first recited phrase “the target pressure” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims. The remaining claims are indefinite due to their dependency from one of claims 1 and 14. 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. Claim(s) 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR-1020190106208 (KR’208)s in view of DE-112009005536 (DE’536) Re: claims 18 and 20. KR’208 shows in figure 1 a method of controlling an electronic brake system 1, the method comprising: generating a hydraulic pressure by rotating a motor 120 to move a piston 114 in a first direction or a second direction; detecting rotation of the motor via element MPS; detecting the generated hydraulic pressure via elements PS11, PS12; identifying a position of the piston based on the rotation of the motor based on element MPS; if the detected hydraulic pressure is greater than or equal to a reference pressure, identifying a target stroke change amount of the piston for securing a target pressure based on a characteristic map; and identifying whether the target pressure is securable based on the position of the piston and the target stroke change amount; and changing a moving direction of the piston based on whether the predetermined target pressure is securable as described in claims 1 and 4, but is silent with regard to the characteristic map. DE’536 teaches in the claim beginning “A method according to claim 4” the use of a brake system including a characteristic map. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the brake system of KR’208 to have included a characteristic map, in view of the teachings of DE’536, in order to provide consistent and more precise braking performance over time and conditions. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record. Applicant’s arguments set forth on pg. 10 of the remarks have been found to be persuasive. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MELODY M BURCH whose telephone number is (571)272-7114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30AM-3PM, generally. 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. mmb April 7, 2026 /MELODY M BURCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 04, 2022
Application Filed
Sep 20, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Dec 29, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 07, 2026
Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600331
CENTRAL ELECTRO-PNEUMATIC PRESSURE CONTROL MODULE IMPLEMENTED AS A COMPONENT AND HAVING AN INTEGRATED CENTRAL BRAKE CONTROL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601382
BRAKE BODY FOR A TRANSPORTATION VEHICLE AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING A BRAKE BODY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601386
VIBRATION DAMPING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595845
DRIVELINE INCLUDING A HYDRODYNAMIC RETARDER AND METHOD OF OPERATING A HYDRODYNAMIC RETARDER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595835
END-STOP CONTROL VALVES FOR PROVIDING PROGESSIVE DAMPING FORCES IN VIBRATION DAMPERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+25.9%)
3y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1029 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month