DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed 10/21/25 has been entered. Claims 1-27 are still pending. Minor claim amendments are sufficient to overcome the 112 rejection, however the previous 103 rejection of all pending claims is maintained as detailed below. 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 § 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.
Pennala in view of Naik
Claim(s) 1-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pennala (U.S. Patent Pub. No. (2018/0056959) in view of Naik et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0228546). Pennala is directed to a brake-by-wire system. See Abstract. Naik is directed to a vehicle control system and method. See Abstract.
Claim 1: Pennala discloses a brake system [Figs. 1, 2C] for a vehicle, comprising at least two control modules (200a, 200b) and an electric brake device (118a-118d, 120a-120d) provided on each wheel (112a, 112b, 114a, 114b) of the vehicle, wherein each of the electric brake devices receives brake requests from the at least two control modules generated in response to a brake demand to brake or release a corresponding wheel [see para. 024, 0039, 0045]. See Figs. 1, 2C.
Pennala discloses all the limitations of this claim except for the “raw signal acquisition module.” Naik discloses a brake system comprising a raw signal acquisition module (470, 472, 474) for acquiring a raw signal (476, 478, 480) indicating the brake demand and directly transmitting the raw signal to at least one of the electric brake devices (482) for verifying the brake requests. See Fig. 5 (comparing unprocessed and processed brake signals to verify request); para. 0023 (“…sensor signals 476, 478, 480 are each preferably provided as an output using separate hardwired sensor signal lines to both brake actuator module 482 as well as each of controllers 412,414,416…”), 0031-37. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use this raw signal module in the Pennala brake system with a reasonable expectation of success because this additional layer of redundancy improves the fault-tolerance of the system, which is a stated objective of the Pennala brake system.
Claim 2: Naik discloses that each of the brake requests has a priority, wherein in response to the brake requests generated by the at least two control modules being different while having same priority, the electric brake devices follow one of the brake requests which is consistent with the raw signal. See Fig. 5; para. 0030 (if differential is small, no priority).
Claim 3: Naik discloses that the raw signal acquisition module is communicatively connected to each of the electric brake devices via an independent communication network; or the raw signal acquisition module is communicatively connected to each of the electric brake devices via a communication network of any one of the control modules. See Fig. 4; para. 0026.
Claim 4: Naik discloses that the at least two control modules comprise a first control module and a second control module (412, 414, 416), the raw acquisition module is one of a plurality of raw acquisition modules (470, 472, 474) including a first raw signal acquisition module, disposed in a communication network in which a first control module communicates with a portion of the electric brake devices, which is configured to transmit the raw signal to the portion of the electric brake devices; and a second raw signal acquisition module, disposed in a communication network in which a second control module communicates with remaining portion of the electric brake devices, which is configured to transmit the raw signal to the remaining portion of the electric brake devices. See para. 0023, 0026 0031-37; Figs. 4, 5.
Claim 5: Naik discloses that the electric brake devices store a correspondence between the brake requests and the raw signal, wherein in response to one of received brake requests and received raw signal conforming to the correspondence, the electric brake devices follow the received brake request consistent with the received raw signal. See Fig. 5 (550 - small differential).
Claim 6: Naik discloses that the electric brake devices further store a correction parameter indicating a correspondence between the brake request and the raw signal, wherein the correction parameter is based on a vehicle load condition and/or an adhesion coefficient, configured to generate the brake request for verification. See para. 0019.
Claim 7: Naik discloses that the brake requests indicate a target braking force that is required to be provided by the electric brake devices, wherein the electric brake devices brake or release the corresponding wheel according to the target braking force indicated by the brake request consistent with the raw signal. See Fig. 5; para. 0023, 0027, 0031-37.
Claim 8: Naik discloses that the response to the brake requests generated by the at least two control modules having different priorities, the electric brake device provided on each wheel of the vehicle follows the brake request with a higher priority. See para. 0027 (“the application of voting techniques for ascertaining the correct value to use for the development of brake control commands by each of controllers 412,414,416 in the event that there is a discrepancy between the values of either the raw or processed sensor signals received by any of them”), 0030 (if differential is large, priority “voting” between controllers).
Claim 9: Naik discloses that the priority comprises at least two levels associated with credibility of the brake request. See para. 0027.
Claim 10: Naik discloses that the control module reduces the level of the priority in response to one of following conditions: the communication network and/or power network of the control module loses integrity; a function of the control module loses integrity; and the control module is unable to generate a reasonable brake request. See para. 0030.
Claim 11: Naik discloses that the raw signal comprises signals generated by one or more of a brake pedal (468), a parking switch and a non-human operating system or module of the vehicle. See para. 0023.
Claim 12: Naik discloses a signal conversion module, wherein the signal conversion module is configured to convert the raw signal into information conforming to a communication network protocol of the electric brake device. See Fig. 4; para. 0026.
Claim 13: Pennala discloses a power management module (204a, 204b), the power management module is configured to manage power supply of the electric braking device. See para. 0029; Fig. 2C.
Claims 14-26: see claims 1-13 above, respectively.
Claim 27: see claim 1 above. Pennala further discloses the implementation of the control method in a computer readable medium, wherein the computer readable medium stores a computer instruction thereon. See para. 0053.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant traverses the 103 rejection because the Pennala reference allegedly fails to disclose that “each of the electric brake devices receives brake requests from the at least two control modules generated in response to a brake demand…” See Remarks, pages 9-11. Specifically, Applicant asserts that Pennala teaches that the Pennala brake device 120a-120d are controlled by “either the first EBS controller 200a or the second EBS controller 200b.” See Remarks, page 9 (citing to Pennala at para. 0043 (“every electro-mechanical actuator 120a-120d may be controlled by only the initiated EBS controllers (e.g., a single EBS controller 200a)”).
In response, Applicant is improperly focusing on a specific embodiment and circumstance of the invention. The quote Applicant relies upon refers to the specific situation where “if the first EBS controller 200a is unable to properly control the first power circuit 202a, the second EBS controller 200b may output the high-frequency switching high-power signal necessary to drive every electro-mechanical actuator installed on the vehicle.” See para. 0043 (emphasis added). In the subsequent paragraph, Pennala makes clear that “Although the power circuits 202a and 202b may operate independently with respect to one another, each EBS controller 200a and 200b is configured to output a data control signal to control any of the power circuits 202a and 202b.” See para. 0044 (emphasis added). This disclosure meets the limitation reciting that each of the brake devices “receives brake requests from the at least two control modules.”
Applicant appears to take an overly narrow interpretation of the claim language by contending that both EBS controller must send brake requests to the brake devices “simultaneously.” See Remarks, page 11. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the controllers “simultaneously” delivering brake requests to the brake devices) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The word “simultaneously” does not appear in the claim language, so this line of argument is irrelevant.
In addition, the specification of the instant application appears to indicate that the control modules 211-212 may “respectively” communicate with the electric brake devices 131-132. See Application, at page 9, lines 6-15. This seems to indicate that the control module 211 communicates with brake device 131 and control module 212 communicates with brake device 132. It does NOT disclose that both control modules communicate with both electric brake devices at the same time. Applicant should refrain from adding claim limitations that are not adequately supported in the specification, since that may result in a section 112 new matter rejection in subsequent actions.
Even if this overly narrow (and therefore, improper) interpretation of the claim language is applied, Pennala would still meet this limitation since the two controllers 200a and 200b communicate with each other in delivering brake requests to the electric brake devices 120a-120d. Specifically, Pennala states, “the first and second EBS controllers 200a and 200b may also share various data 304 between one another (see FIG. 3). The shared data includes, for example, detected brake requests…” See para. 0032, 0036; Fig. 3. Thus, so long as both controllers 200a and 200b are functional/operational, they are configured to collectively deliver brake requests to all of the electric devices.
Applicant’s arguments are ultimately unpersuasive and, for the foregoing reasons, all pending claims remain rejected as detailed above.
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 VISHAL R SAHNI whose telephone number is (571)270-3838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm PST.
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.
VISHAL SAHNI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/VISHAL R SAHNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 October 23, 2025
Prosecution Insights