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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/26/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 recites “The electro-mechanical actuator according to claim 12, wherein the backup energy storage stores mechanical energy.” [0018] of the original disclosure indicates that “Optionally, the backup energy storage may however rather be configured to store mechanical energy. This can in particular be in form of a pre-tensioned spring. Storing mechanical energy is advantageous for a backup energy storage in an actuator which is not an electro-mechanical actuator.” The original disclosure indicates that the backup energy storage which stores mechanical energy is not an electro-mechanical actuator, however, the claim requires the combination of a backup energy storage the stores mechanical energy and an electro-mechanical actuator. The original disclosure does not support this combination and the recitations therefore constitute new matter.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 18 recites “The electro-mechanical actuator according to claim 12, wherein the backup energy storage stores mechanical energy.” [0018] of the original disclosure indicates that “Optionally, the backup energy storage may however rather be configured to store mechanical energy. This can in particular be in form of a pre-tensioned spring. Storing mechanical energy is advantageous for a backup energy storage in an actuator which is not an electro-mechanical actuator.” The original disclosure indicates that the backup energy storage which stores mechanical energy is not an electro-mechanical actuator, however, the claim requires the combination of a backup energy storage the stores mechanical energy and an electro-mechanical actuator. The original disclosure fails to describe how a mechanical energy store such as a pre-tensioned spring would be used to cause an electro-mechanical actuation element to perform a complete brake actuation. It is maintained that the feature is not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
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.
Claim 29 is 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.
Claim 29 recites “a housing”. It is not clear if this is the same housing as that amended into parent claim 21, or an additional housing.
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 12-13, 16-17, 19-22 and 25-31 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumoto (US# 2020/0130666) in view of Lang (US# 2008/0135357) and Tarandek et al (US# 2022/0194344).
Izumoto discloses an electro-mechanical actuator for a wheel brake unit of a vehicle, comprising: an electro-mechanical actuation element MTW that performs an actuation and is configured to receive, through an energy store BAT, energy for performing the actuation. wherein the electro-mechanical actuator includes a housing CPrl (figure 8) , and wherein the electro-mechanical actuator is configured to be included in the wheel brake unit (figure 8). Izumoto lack the disclosure of a backup energy storage configured to store energy sufficient for causing the electro- mechanical actuation element to perform a complete brake actuation for fully stopping the vehicle at least once, and to provide the energy for fully stopping the vehicle needed by the electro-mechanical actuation element in an emergency situation where energy from the energy store employed in normal operation is unavailable, wherein the backup energy storage is included within the housing. Lang discloses a similar brake system and further teaches a backup energy storage 30 configured to store energy sufficient for causing the electro-mechanical actuation element to perform a brake actuation in an emergency situation where energy from the energy store employed in normal operation is unavailable [0014][0015]. Lang further teach the backup energy storage is included within a housing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the backup energy storage taught by Lang in the caliper of Izumoto to reduce the requirements on the vehicle electrical system and to keep power dissipation low [0014]. Lang teaches various capacities of backup capacitor(s), but do not specifically disclose energy sufficient for fully stopping the vehicle at least once. Tarandek et al disclose a similar brake system and further teach sizing a redundant power supply for one or a limited number of braking actions or brake release actions [0068]. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size the backup energy store such as taught by Tarandek et al, through routine design and/or experimentation to provide the optimum balance between stopping power and weight/size reduction of the power source.
Regarding claims 13 and 22, Lang teaches the backup energy storage 30 is configured to receive a signal, and to provide, upon receiving the signal, at least a part of the energy needed by the electro-mechanical actuation element to perform the actuation. [0026][0027]
Regarding claim 14, Izumoto further disclose a detection unit DGK configured to detect a power shortage indicative of an emergency situation (insufficient power [0159][0142]), and to generate an emergency signal to trigger a generation of the signal.
Regarding claim 16, the backup energy storage is configured to store electric energy.
Regarding claim 17, the backup energy storage is configured to store the electric energy within one or more of the following devices: a capacitor, a supercapacitor, an ultracapacitor ([0034] of Lang).
Regarding claim 19, an electronic control unit, wherein the backup energy storage is integrated into the electronic control unit. Note the caliper with associated drivers and circuitry (figure 8) can be considered an electronic control unit.
Regarding claim 20, Izumoto discloses a wheel brake unit, comprising: a wheel brake; and an electro-mechanical actuator according to claim 12. Figure 8.
Regarding claim 21, Izumoto discloses a method for performing a safety actuation for a wheel brake unit of a vehicle, wherein an electro-mechanical actuator comprises an electro-mechanical actuation element MTW that performs an actuation and is configured to receive, through an energy store BAT, energy for performing the actuation, and a housing CPrl. Izumoto lack the disclosure of storing, in a backup energy storage comprised in the electro-mechanical action element for fully stopping the vehicle at least once, and providing, from the backup energy storage, energy needed by the electro-mechanical actuation element for fully stopping the vehicle in an emergency situation where energy from the energy store employed in normal operation is unavailable, wherein the backup energy storage is included within the housing. Lang discloses a similar brake system and further teaches a backup energy storage 30 configured to store energy sufficient for causing the electro-mechanical actuation element to perform a brake actuation in an emergency situation where energy from the energy store employed in normal operation is unavailable [0014][0015]. Lang further teach the backup energy storage is included within a housing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the backup energy storage taught by Lang in the caliper of Izumoto to reduce the requirements on the vehicle electrical system and to keep power dissipation low [0014]. Lang teaches various capacities of backup capacitor(s), but do not specifically disclose energy sufficient for fully stopping the vehicle at least once. Tarandek et al disclose a similar brake system and further teach sizing a redundant power supply for one or a limited number of braking actions or brake release actions [0068]. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size the backup energy store as taught by Tarandek et al, through routine design and/or experimentation to provide the optimum balance between stopping power and weight/size reduction of the power source.
Regarding claims 25 and 28, Lang teach the backup energy storage is a dedicated energy storage to the electro-mechanical actuator.
Regarding claims 26 and 30, Lang teach the backup energy storage is local to the electro-mechanical actuator.
Regarding claim 29, as modified, Izumoto further disclose a housing (caliper CPrl), accommodating the backup energy storage BWH.
Regarding claims 27 and 31, as modified, an electronic control unit DRW is local to the electro-mechanical actuator MTRW and backup energy storage unit BWH. Figure 8.
Claims 12-14, 16-17, 19-23 and 25-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui et al (US# 2016/0355170).
Yasui et al disclose a electro-mechanical brake actuator including; an electro-mechanical actuator DRV/MTR for a wheel brake unit of a vehicle, comprising: an electro-mechanical actuation element MTR that performs an actuation and is configured to receive, through an energy store BBD, energy for performing the actuation, and a backup energy storage BWH configured to store energy, and to provide the energy needed by the electro-mechanical actuation element in an emergency situation where energy from the energy store employed in normal operation is unavailable, wherein the electro-mechanical actuator includes a housing CPR, and the backup energy storage is included within the housing, and wherein the electro-mechanical actuator is configured to be included in the wheel brake unit. Yasui et al further teach an embodiment where BWH is in the housing stores energy sufficient for causing the electro-mechanical actuation element to perform a complete brake actuation for fully stopping the vehicle at least once [0096]. Yasui et al teach a separate embodiment where BBD normally provides the energy for braking and BWH is sized smaller [0153] such that it does not drive the motor alone. 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 brake energy store BWH in the third embodiment with sufficient power to stop the vehicle, such as taught in [0096], should safety be more desirable than weight or cost savings of using a smaller energy source.
Regarding claims 13 and 22, the backup energy storage BWH/DCC/Swe is configured to receive a signal, and to provide, upon receiving the signal, at least a part of the energy needed by the electro-mechanical actuation element to perform the actuation. [0158][0142]
Regarding claim 14, Yasui et al further disclose a detection unit DGK configured to detect a power shortage indicative of an emergency situation (insufficient power [0159][0142]), and to generate an emergency signal to trigger a generation of the signal.
Regarding claim 16, the backup energy storage is configured to store electric energy.
Regarding claim 17, the backup energy storage BWH is configured to store the electric energy within one or more of the following devices: a capacitor, a supercapacitor, an ultracapacitor [0097], or the backup energy storage BBD is configured to store the electric energy within a rechargeable battery [0063].
Regarding claim 19, an electronic control unit, wherein the backup energy storage BWH is integrated into the electronic control unit. Note the caliper with associated drivers and circuitry (figure 2) can be considered an electronic control unit.
Regarding claim 20, Yasui et al discloses a wheel brake unit, comprising: a wheel brake; and an electro-mechanical actuator according to claim 12. Figure 2.
Regarding claim 21, Yasui et al discloses a method for performing a safety actuation for a wheel brake unit BRK of a vehicle, wherein an electro-mechanical actuator is included in the wheel brake unit and comprises an electro-mechanical actuation element MTR that performs an actuation and is configured to receive, through an energy store, energy for performing the actuation, the method comprising: storing, in a backup energy storage; and providing, from the backup energy storage, energy needed by the electro-mechanical actuation element in an emergency situation, where energy from the energy store employed in normal operation is unavailable, wherein the electro-mechanical actuator includes a housing CPR, and the backup energy storage BWH is included within the housing. Yasui et al further teach an embodiment where BWH is in the housing stores energy sufficient for causing the electro-mechanical actuation element to perform a complete brake actuation for fully stopping the vehicle at least once [0096]. Yasui et al teach a separate embodiment where BBD normally provides the energy for braking and BWH is sized smaller [0153] such that it does not drive the motor alone. 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 brake energy store BWH in the third embodiment with sufficient power to stop the vehicle, such as taught in [0096], should safety be more desirable than weight or cost savings of using a smaller energy source.
Regarding claim 23, Yasui et al disclose detecting a power shortage indicative of an emergency situation (insufficient power [0159][0142]); and generating an emergency signal in order to trigger a generation of the signal to be received by the backup energy storage BWH.
Regarding claims 25 and 28, the backup energy storage BWH is a dedicated energy storage to the electro-mechanical actuator DRV/MTR. Figure 3.
Regarding claims 26 and 30, the backup energy storage BWH is local to the electro-mechanical actuator DRV/MTR. Figure 2.
Regarding claims 27 and 31, an electronic control unit CTL is local to the electro-mechanical actuator DRV/MTR and backup energy storage unit BWH. Figure 2.
Claim 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui et al (US# 2016/0355170) in view of Yamamoto et al (US# 2023/0107732).
Yasui et al discloses a control device CTL which causes the acts of storing, in a backup energy store BBD, energy sufficient for causing the electro-mechanical actuation element to perform a complete brake actuation at least once; and providing, from the backup energy store BBD, energy needed by the electro-mechanical actuation element in an emergency situation. Yasui et al lack the specific disclosure of a computer product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon program code which, when the program code is executed on a computer or data processing unit; causes the recited acts. Yamamoto et al disclose a similar brake system and further teach the use of a computer product comprising non-transitory computer-readable medium (RAM and ROM) having stored thereon program code (computer readable code) which is executed on a computer (CPU) or data processing unit 40 [0023] to carry out similar functions (figures 2-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a computer product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon program code, such as taught by Yamamoto et al, for the control device of Yasui et al as an obvious means of implementing the disclosed control in an appropriately sized device. It is noted that the limitations directed at the location of the backup energy does not appear to further define the recited computer product code.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection under 112 1st, Applicant notes text from paragraphs [0009][0024] and [0018]. It is noted that these paragraphs are from the background and summary, not the detailed description. And they do not describe the combination of a mechanical energy store with an electro-mechanical actuator. [0009] suggests an electro-mechanical actuator. [0011] discusses an electrical energy store. [0017] suggests capacitors or a rechargeable battery. [0018] then suggests the alternative of a mechanical energy store which is “advantageous for a backup energy storage in an actuator which is not an electro-mechanical actuator.” The paragraphs that follow do not appear to be directed at a specific embodiment of actuator and power supply. It is maintained that the specific combination of an electro-mechanical actuator and mechanical energy store is not supported and enabled by the original disclosure.
Regarding Yasui et al, please note the new grounds of rejection above.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights