Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/910,662

ELECTRIC PARKING BRAKE DEVICE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Sep 09, 2022
Examiner
KING, BRADLEY T
Art Unit
3616
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Hitachi Astemo Ueda Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
666 granted / 940 resolved
+18.9% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+24.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
53 currently pending
Career history
993
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
36.7%
-3.3% vs TC avg
§102
30.1%
-9.9% vs TC avg
§112
29.7%
-10.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 940 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 § 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. Claims 6, 9, 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al (US# 2008/0185235) in view of Curran et al (US# 6325471). Suzuki et al disclose an electric parking brake device 1 which is associated with a service brake 10-13 and 23-26 configured to generate a brake force in accordance with an operation input of a vehicle user [0029], and which is configured to enable a parking brake 30/35 configured to generate a brake force with a function of an electric actuator 30 having operation controlled by a control unit 9. Suzuki et further teach a service brake detector 14 connected to a control unit 9 and configured to detect whether or not the service brake has been applied after completion of application operation of the electric actuator. Suzuki et al lack the disclosure of the control unit being configured to: (i) start to count in response to an end of detection of the service brake by the service brake detector; and (ii) stop operation of the control unit itself after an elapse of a first predetermined time from the start of the count. Curran et al disclose a similar brake device and further teach a service brake detector (col 3, lines 1-5) connected to a control unit 26 and configured to detect whether or not the service brake has been applied after completion of application operation of the parking brake (steps 64, 74), wherein the control unit is configured to: (i) start to count (step 56) in response to an end of detection of the service brake (step 64) by the service brake detector; and (ii) stop operation of the control unit itself (step 70) after an elapse of a first predetermined time from the start of the count (step 68). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the powering procedure taught by Curran et al for the controller of Suzuki et al to ensure power at appropriate times while reducing power consumption, thereby improving the efficiency of the device. Regarding claim 9, the service brake detector is a hydraulic pressure sensor 14 configured to detect a brake hydraulic pressure for obtaining a brake force by the service brake. Regarding claims 12 and 15, Suzuki et al further disclose the electric actuator 30 coupled to a brake cable 34 to drive a parking brake lever 110 is attached to a drum brake 35 including a wheel cylinder 24 configured to generate the brake force by a service brake, the parking brake lever being configured to operate to obtain the brake force by the parking brake, and the brake cable being coupled to the parking brake lever. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 7-8, 10-11, 13-14 and 16-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 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 any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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 BRADLEY T KING whose telephone number is (571)272-7117. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-5:00 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. /BRADLEY T KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 BTK
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 09, 2022
Application Filed
Sep 05, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 10, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 22, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600332
Vehicle Braking System
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600334
ELECTRONIC BRAKE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600337
HYDRAULIC BRAKE APPARATUS FOR VEHICLE AND CONTROL METHOD THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601385
SHOCK ABSORBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600338
AIR MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR REUSING EXHAUSTED AIR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 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
71%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+24.4%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 940 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