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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because the phrase “the EP disengagement, tt” (see claim, line 18) includes the typographical error “tt.” 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 1 and 8 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 1, the phrases “identify a supply hydraulic pressure supplied when the EPB is engaged and stored in a memory” and “store the supply hydraulic pressure of the cylinder in the memory before an EPB engagement operation” is indefinite because it is unclear whether the supply hydraulic pressure is stored in memory “when the EPB is engaged” or “before an EPB engagement operation.”
Regarding claim 8, the phrases “identifying a supply hydraulic pressure supplied when the EPB is engaged and stored in a memory” and “storing the supply hydraulic pressure of the cylinder in the memory before an EPB engagement operation” is indefinite because it is unclear whether the supply hydraulic pressure is stored in memory “when the EPB is engaged” or “before an EPB engagement operation.”
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 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US 2011/0153147) in view of Hauber et al. (US 2015/0217737).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe discloses an electronic parking brake system (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-6), comprising: an electronic parking brake (EPB) (2) comprising a piston (19) that moves by a hydraulic pressure to press brake pads (11) onto a brake disc (12) (see ¶ 0049), a cylinder (6) in which the piston is provided movably forward and backward (see FIG. 2), and an EPB actuator (10, 15, 16, 17, 18) that moves the piston by a motor (10) to press the brake pads onto the brake disc (see ¶ 0044); a pressure sensor (25) configured to detect a hydraulic pressure of the cylinder (see ¶ 0061); an electronic stability control (ESC) actuator (7) configured to generate and supply a hydraulic pressure to the cylinder (see ¶ 0038); and a controller (8, 9) configured to control the EPB actuator and the ESC actuator (see ¶¶ 0052-0055, 0063), wherein the controller is configured to identify a supply hydraulic pressure (PLMC) supplied when the EPB is engaged (see FIG. 6, step (300), ¶ 0075; “PLMC” is identified) and stored in a memory (see ¶ 0071, “PLMC” stored during engagement) based on an EPB disengagement request (see FIG. 3, step (170)), set a required hydraulic pressure (see FIG. 6, step (300)), detect an actual hydraulic pressure (25) of the cylinder through the pressure sensor in the EPB disengagement (see ¶ 0075; FIG. 6, step (300)), and when the detected actual hydraulic pressure is greater than or equal to the required hydraulic pressure, control the EPB actuator to perform an EPB disengagement control (see ¶ 0083; FIG. 6, step (340)), when the detected actual hydraulic pressure is less than the required hydraulic pressure (see FIG. 6, step (300), no determination), supply the hydraulic pressure through the ESC actuator (see FIG. 6, step (310) ESC supplies hydraulic pressure) until the detected actual hydraulic pressure reaches the required hydraulic pressure (see ¶ 0080; see also FIG. 6, step (300), yes determination), control the EPB disengagement operation (see ¶ 0083; FIG. 6, step (340)), and release the hydraulic pressure of the cylinder after completion of the EPB disengagement control (see ¶ 0084; FIG. 6, step (355)), the controller is further configured to detect a first hydraulic pressure (PWC) (see FIG. 4, step (205); see also ¶ 0061) of the cylinder through the pressure sensor (25) (see ¶ 0061) based on and EPB engagement request (see FIG. 3, step (120), which proceeds to step (140), which is shown in FIG. 4 and includes step (205)), and store the supply hydraulic pressure of the cylinder in the memory when the first hydraulic pressure (PWC) is greater than or equal to a preset hydraulic pressure (TPWC) (see FIG. 4, when first pressure (PWC) is greater than preset pressure (TPWC), algorithm proceeds to step (250) where (PWC) is stored as (PLMC) (see ¶ 0071)), and wherein the preset hydraulic pressure is a minimum pressure that generates a clamping force capable of stopping a corresponding vehicle wheel in a state where the EPB actuator is not in an EPB engagement (see ¶ 0059).
Watanabe does not disclose that setting the required hydraulic pressure to be equal to the supply hydraulic pressure. Rather, Watanabe discloses that the required pressure corresponds to the supply hydraulic pressure (see ¶ 0075, required pressure is set as PLMC + C, where PLMC is the supply hydraulic pressure at the time of EPB engagement). Watanabe further does not disclose that the supply hydraulic pressure of the cylinder is stored in the memory before an EPB engagement operation.
Hauber teaches an electronic parking brake system (see Abstract, FIGS. 1, 2), comprising: an electronic parking brake (100) (see ¶ 0022), an electronic stability control actuator (see ¶ 0025, “ESP modulator”), and a control device (see ¶ 0025, “control device (not shown)”), set a required hydraulic pressure to be equal to the supply hydraulic pressure stored in memory to minimize a change in hydraulic pressure between an EPB engagement and EPB disengagement (see ¶¶ 0031-0033, total pressure at EPB disengagement (“second driver pre-applied pressure” + “hydraulic support”) equals total pressure at EPB engagement (“first driver pre-applied pressure”)), wherein the controller is further configured to detect a first hydraulic pressure of the cylinder through a pressure sensor based on an EPB engagement request (see ¶ 0025), and store the supply hydraulic pressure of the cylinder in the memory before an EPB engagement operation (see ¶ 0025), when the first hydraulic pressure is greater than or equal to a preset hydraulic pressure (see ¶ 0025).
It would have been obvious to set the required pressure during a release process of Watanabe to be the same as the detected supply pressure before an EPB engagement (instead of the detected pressure during an EPB engagement plus a constant) as a substitute of one known element for another that would only yield predictable results – namely that the required pressure being equal to the supply pressure before the engagement of an EPB is sufficient to release a locking condition of the EPB actuator (see e.g. Hauber, ¶ 0009).
Furthermore, regarding moving the storing step to before the engagement of the EPB actuator, the “selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results” (see MPEP 2144.04.IV. C) (citing In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946)). In the present case, there are no unexpected results from saving the supply hydraulic pressure of the cylinder before the EPB engagement. As shown in Watanabe, the wheel cylinder pressure (PWC) is compared to a target pressure (TPWC) at step (205) (see FIG. 4). If the wheel cylinder pressure (PWC) is not greater than the target pressure (TPWC), then an Electronic Stability Control (ESC) unit is operated to increase the wheel cylinder pressure (PWC) at step (215). This process is repeated until an affirmative decision is made at step (205) and thereafter the ESC is instructed to maintain the wheel cylinder pressure (PWC) at a constant pressure at step (230) for the remainder of the process both before and after the EPB engagement operation at steps (235, 240, 245). As such, it would make no difference whether the wheel cylinder pressure is saved to memory before or after the EPB engagement operation, because the wheel cylinder pressure is the same both before and after the EPB engagement operation and there are no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 8, Watanabe discloses a control method of an electronic parking brake system (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-6), comprising: an electronic parking brake (EPB) (2) comprising a piston (19) that moves by a hydraulic pressure to press brake pads (11) onto a brake disc (12) (see ¶ 0049), a cylinder (6) in which the piston is provided movably forward and backward (see FIG. 2), and an EPB actuator (10, 15, 16, 17, 18) that moves the piston by a motor (10) to press the brake pads onto the brake disc (see ¶ 0044); identifying a supply hydraulic pressure (PLMC) supplied when the EPB is engaged (see FIG. 6, step (300), ¶ 0075; “PLMC” is identified) and stored in a memory (see ¶ 0071, “PLMC” stored during engagement), setting a required hydraulic pressure (see FIG. 6, step (300)), detecting an actual hydraulic pressure (25) of the cylinder through the pressure sensor in an EPB disengagement (see ¶ 0075; FIG. 6, step (300)), and when the detected actual hydraulic pressure is greater than or equal to the required hydraulic pressure, controlling the EPB actuator to perform an EPB disengagement operation (see ¶ 0083; FIG. 6, step (340)), when the detected actual hydraulic pressure is less than the required hydraulic pressure (see FIG. 6, step (300), no determination), supplying the hydraulic pressure through an ESC actuator (see FIG. 6, step (310) ESC supplies hydraulic pressure) until the detected actual hydraulic pressure reaches the required hydraulic pressure (see ¶ 0080; see also FIG. 6, step (300), yes determination), and releasing the hydraulic pressure of the cylinder after completion of the EPB disengagement operation (see ¶ 0084; FIG. 6, step (355)), detecting a first hydraulic pressure (PWC) (see FIG. 4, step (205); see also ¶ 0061) of the cylinder through the pressure sensor (25) (see ¶ 0061) based on and EPB engagement request (see FIG. 3, step (120), which proceeds to step (140), which is shown in FIG. 4 and includes step (205)), and storing the supply hydraulic pressure of the cylinder in the memory when the first hydraulic pressure (PWC) is greater than or equal to a preset hydraulic pressure (TPWC) (see FIG. 4, when first pressure (PWC) is greater than preset pressure (TPWC), algorithm proceeds to step (250) where (PWC) is stored as (PLMC) (see ¶ 0071)), and wherein the preset hydraulic pressure is a minimum pressure that generates a clamping force capable of stopping a corresponding vehicle wheel in a state where the EPB actuator is not in an EPB engagement (see ¶ 0059).
Watanabe does not disclose setting a required hydraulic pressure to be equal to the supply hydraulic pressure stored in the memory to minimize a change in hydraulic pressure between an EPB engagement and an EPB disengagement. Rather, Watanabe discloses that the required pressure corresponds to the supply hydraulic pressure (see ¶ 0075, required pressure is set as PLMC + C, where PLMC is the supply hydraulic pressure at the time of EPB engagement and C is a costant). Watanabe further does not disclose that the supply hydraulic pressure of the cylinder is stored in the memory before an EPB engagement operation.
Hauber teaches a control method of an electronic parking brake system (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-6), comprising: an electronic parking brake (100) (see ¶ 0022), an electronic stability control actuator (see ¶ 0025, “ESP modulator”), and a control device (see ¶ 0025, “control device (not shown)”), the method comprising setting a required hydraulic pressure to be equal to the supply hydraulic pressure stored in memory to minimize a change in hydraulic pressure between an EPB engagement and EPB disengagement stored in the memory to minimize a change in hydraulic pressure between an EPB engagement and an EPB disengagement (see ¶¶ 0031-0033, total pressure at EPB disengagement (“second driver pre-applied pressure” + “hydraulic support”) equals total pressure at EPB engagement (“first driver pre-applied pressure”)), and detecting a first hydraulic pressure of the cylinder through a pressure sensor based on an EPB engagement request (see ¶ 0025), and store the supply hydraulic pressure of the cylinder in the memory before an EPB engagement operation (see ¶ 0025), when the first hydraulic pressure is greater than or equal to a preset hydraulic pressure (see ¶ 0025).
It would have been obvious to set the required pressure during a release process of Watanabe to be the same as the detected supply pressure before an EPB engagement (instead of the detected pressure during an EPB engagement plus a constant) as a substitute of one known element for another that would only yield predictable results – namely that the required pressure being equal to the supply pressure before the engagement of an EPB is sufficient to release a locking condition of the EPB actuator (see e.g. Hauber, ¶ 0009).
Furthermore, regarding moving the storing step to before the engagement of the EPB actuator, the “selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results” (see MPEP 2144.04.IV. C) (citing In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946)). In the present case, there are no unexpected results from saving the supply hydraulic pressure of the cylinder before the EPB engagement. As shown in Watanabe, the wheel cylinder pressure (PWC) is compared to a target pressure (TPWC) at step (205) (see FIG. 4). If the wheel cylinder pressure (PWC) is not greater than the target pressure (TPWC), then an Electronic Stability Control (ESC) unit is operated to increase the wheel cylinder pressure (PWC) at step (215). This process is repeated until an affirmative decision is made at step (205) and thereafter the ESC is instructed to maintain the wheel cylinder pressure (PWC) at a constant pressure at step (230) for the remainder of the process both before and after the EPB engagement operation at steps (235, 240, 245). As such, it would make no difference whether the wheel cylinder pressure is saved to memory before or after the EPB engagement operation, because the wheel cylinder pressure is the same both before and after the EPB engagement operation and there are no unexpected results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04-Jun-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1 and 8 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Hauber, Applicant argues that “Hauber, however, is silent about setting the required hydraulic pressure equal to the supply hydraulic pressure as recited in amended claim 1.” Hauber, however, discloses that the pressure supplied at the time of EPB disengagement is set to be equal to the pressure supplied at the time of EPB engagement (see ¶ 0031, total pressure at EPB disengagement (“second driver pre-applied pressure” + “hydraulic support”) equals total pressure at EPB engagement (“first driver pre-applied pressure”)).
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 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
June 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights