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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 14-Jan-2026 has been entered.
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 “a hydraulic pressure” (see line 2), “a hydraulic pressure of the cylinder” (see line 6), “a hydraulic pressure to the cylinder” (see line 7), “a supply hydraulic pressure” (see line 11), “an actual hydraulic pressure” (see line 15), “a hydraulic pressure supplied when the EPB is engaged” (see line 23), and “a first hydraulic pressure of the cylinder” (see line 27) all refer to the hydraulic pressure that is present in the brake cylinder, rendering it unclear whether different pressures are being recited or rather that all or some of these pressures are the same pressures. It is suggested that the pressure actually existing in the hydraulic cylinder be referred to by a single term. It is further suggested that that the target pressure at the time of engagement (see line 31, “preset hydraulic pressure”) be referred to by a single term, and that the target pressure at the time of release (see line 14, “a required hydraulic pressure”) be referred to by a single term.
Regarding claim 1, the phrases “when the detected actual hydraulic pressure is higher than the required hydraulic pressure, control the EPB actuator to start an EPB control” (see lines 17-18) and “when the detected actual hydraulic pressure reaches the required hydraulic pressure which corresponds to a hydraulic pressure supplied when the EPB is engaged, control the EPB disengagement control” (see lines 22-24) are indefinite because it is unclear whether this is a repetition of the same step, and further unclear whether the pressure is required to be higher than the required hydraulic pressure or merely reach the required hydraulic pressure.
Regarding claim 1, the phrases “determine the supply hydraulic pressure as a required hydraulic pressure” (see lines 13-14) and “the required hydraulic pressure which corresponds to a hydraulic pressure when the EPB is engaged” (see lines 22-24) are indefinite because it is unclear whether the required hydraulic pressure is the same as the supply hydraulic pressure, or rather corresponds to the supply hydraulic pressure.
Regarding claim 8, the phrases “a hydraulic pressure” (see line 2), “a supply hydraulic pressure” (see line 7), “an actual hydraulic pressure” (see line 10), “a hydraulic pressure supplied when the EPB is engaged” (see line 18), and “a first hydraulic pressure of the cylinder” (see line 23) all refer to the hydraulic pressure that is present in the brake cylinder, rendering it unclear whether different pressures are being recited or rather that all or some of these pressures are the same pressures. It is suggested that the pressure actually existing in the hydraulic cylinder be referred to by a single term. It is further suggested that that the target pressure at the time of engagement (see line 31, “preset hydraulic pressure”) be referred to by a single term, and that the target pressure at the time of release (see line 14, “a required hydraulic pressure”) be referred to by a single term.
Regarding claim 8, the phrases “when the detected actual hydraulic pressure is higher than the required hydraulic pressure, control the EPB actuator to start an EPB control” (see lines 12-13) and “when the detected actual hydraulic pressure reaches the required hydraulic pressure which corresponds to a hydraulic pressure supplied when the EPB is engaged, control the EPB disengagement control” (see lines 17-18) are indefinite because it is unclear whether this is a repetition of the same step, and further unclear whether the pressure is required to be higher than the required hydraulic pressure or merely reach the required hydraulic pressure.
Regarding claim 8, the phrases “determining the supply hydraulic pressure as a required hydraulic pressure” (see lines 8-9) and “the required hydraulic pressure which corresponds to a hydraulic pressure when the EPB is engaged” (see lines 17-18) are indefinite because it is unclear whether the required hydraulic pressure is the same as the supply hydraulic pressure, or rather corresponds to the supply hydraulic pressure.
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) (see FIG. 6, step (300), ¶ 0075; “PLMC” is identified) stored in a memory (see ¶ 0071, “PLMC” stored during engagement), determine a pressure substantially equivalent to the supply hydraulic pressure (see ¶ 0075, TPWC is determined as PLMC + C) as a required hydraulic pressure (TPWC), detect 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 being higher than a required hydraulic pressure, control the EPB actuator to start 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), when the detected actual hydraulic pressure reaches the required hydraulic pressure which corresponds to a hydraulic pressure supplied when the EPB is engaged (see ¶ 0075, TPWC is determined as PLMC + C), control the EPB disengagement control (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 the supply hydraulic pressure is set as the required 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)”), determine the supply hydraulic pressure as the required pressure (see claim 4, the required hydraulic pressure is the difference between the first hydraulic pre-pressure at the time of EPB engagement and the second hydraulic pre-pressure at the time of EPB disengagement – if second hydraulic pre-pressure applied by driver is non-existent (i.e. 0), then the required hydraulic pressure to be built up equals the first hydraulic pre-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) (see FIG. 6, step (300), ¶ 0075; “PLMC” is identified) stored in a memory (see ¶ 0071, “PLMC” stored during engagement), determining a pressure substantially equivalent to the supply hydraulic pressure (see ¶ 0075, TPWC is determined as PLMC + C) as a required hydraulic pressure (TPWC), 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 being higher than a required hydraulic pressure, controlling the EPB actuator to start 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), 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), when the detected actual hydraulic pressure reaches the required hydraulic pressure which corresponds to a hydraulic pressure supplied when the EPB is engaged (see ¶ 0075, TPWC is determined as PLMC + C), controlling the EPB disengagement control (see ¶ 0083; FIG. 6, step (340)), and releasing the hydraulic pressure of the cylinder after completion of the EPB disengagement control (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 that the supply hydraulic pressure is set as the required 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)”), determine the supply hydraulic pressure as the required pressure (see claim 4, the required hydraulic pressure is the difference between the first hydraulic pre-pressure at the time of EPB engagement and the second hydraulic pre-pressure at the time of EPB disengagement – if second hydraulic pre-pressure applied by driver is non-existent (i.e. 0), then the required hydraulic pressure to be built up equals the first hydraulic pre-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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 8 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection noted above.
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 5, 2026