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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on September 02, 2025. Claims 1-4, 6-21 are pending.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
In respond to applicant's arguments based on the filed amendment with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of said previous office action have been fully considered and are persuasive; however, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-4, 6-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgin US2020/0307530 (“Georgin”) in view of Yamamoto et al. US2008/0133072 (“Yamamoto”) further in view of Cahill et al. US2010/0274458 (“Cahill”).
Regarding claim(s) 1, 7, 14. Georgin discloses a brake assembly coupled to a wheel, comprising:
a plurality of stator disks; a plurality of rotor disks interleaved with the plurality of stator disks and configured to apply a braking force to the wheel; a pressure plate disposed adjacent a rotor disk of the plurality of rotor disks; a first electric brake actuator disposed adjacent the pressure plate and configured to apply the braking force to the pressure plate (fig. 1B and para. 20, he brake mechanism 100 includes a piston housing assembly 116, a pressure plate 118 disposed adjacent the piston housing assembly 116, an end plate 120 positioned a distal location from the piston housing assembly 116, and a plurality of rotor disks 122 interleaved with a plurality of stator disks 124 positioned intermediate the pressure plate 118 and the end plate 120. The pressure plate 118, the plurality of rotor disks 122, the plurality of stator disks 124 and the end plate 120 together form a brake stack 126 (or brake heat sink). The pressure plate 118, the end plate 120 and the plurality of stator disks 124 are connected to the torque plate 114 and remain rotationally stationary relative to the axle 102. The plurality of rotor disks 122 are connected to the wheel 104 and rotate relative to the pressure plate 118, the end plate 120 and the plurality of stator disks 124), and a second electric brake actuator disposed adjacent the pressure plate and configured to apply the braking force to the pressure plate (para. 24, In various embodiments, each of the left outboard brake mechanism 206, the left inboard brake mechanism 208, the right outboard brake mechanism 210 and the right inboard brake mechanism 212 includes a plurality of actuators 214, labeled #1, #2, #3 and #4).
Georgin does not explicitly disclose the first electric brake actuator including a parking brake mechanism.
Yamamoto teaches another electric braking system with brake actuator including a parking brake mechanism (Abstract, para. 2, para. 9, Fig. 2, the above and other aspects may be carried out in one embodiment by a method of controlling a brake status indicator for a vehicle having a first brake system control unit (BSCU) and a second BSCU, the first and second BSCUs being configured to independently control respective electric brake actuators and respective parking brake mechanisms. The method involves: activating a Brake On element of the brake status indicator only if: (1) the first BSCU determines that all of the electric brake actuators associated with the first BSCU are actuated, and (2) the second BSCU determines that all of the electric brake actuators associated with the second BSCU are actuated).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method of Georgin by incorporating the applied teaching of Yamamoto to enable the parking braking to be electrical controlled to improve brake system safety and weight reduction.
Georgin also silent to wherein the first electric brake actuator is configured to receive a parking brake signal and to apply the braking force in response to the parking brake signal and wherein the second electric brake actuator is not configured to receive the parking brake signal.
Cahill teaches another parking braking signal controls with a first electric brake actuator is configured to receive a parking brake signal and to apply the braking force in response to the parking brake signal and wherein the second electric brake actuator is not configured to receive the parking brake signal (para, 27, para, 37, 47, During park/emergency braking operations, both the BSCU 12 and controller 40 are bypassed, and the displacement of each actuator 26 is directly controlled by emergency/park input device 22. More specifically, when the brake mode corresponds to park/emergency braking, the select input SE is false, and the switch 67 connects the second input IN2 to the switch output, thereby coupling the emergency/park brake command signal from the emergency/park input device 22 to the servo loop compensation network 60. Thus, in the event of primary brake system failure, park/emergency braking can be provided via the each EMAC 12, without the need for a separate emergency control unit.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Georgin with Cahill’s teaching above to improve the vehicle braking controls by enable a selective braking actuator to be bypassed based on a parking braking signal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim(s) 2, 9. Georgin in view of Yamamoto and Cahill further teaches a first plurality of wires coupled to the first electric brake actuator and to the second electric brake actuator, the first plurality of wires configured to transmit a braking signal to the first electric brake actuator and to the second electric brake actuator; and a second plurality of wires coupled to the first electric brake actuator, the second plurality of wires configured to transmit a parking brake signal to the first electric brake actuator (Georgin: para. 25, he brake system 200 is controlled by a brake control unit 250. The brake control unit (BCU) 250 is configured to receive various operator inputs, such as, for example, left and right pilot brake pedal signals from left and right pilot brake pedals 252 and left and right co-pilot brake pedal signals from left and right co-pilot brake pedals 254. The brake pedal signals can be generated, for example, via linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs) operatively coupled to the respective pedals. As the pedals are depressed, each LVDT generates a voltage signal corresponding to the degree of pedal deflection, and this voltage signal can be provided to the BCU 250. Other methods for generating the brake pedal signals may also be employed, including encoders, potentiometers, or the like.).
Regarding claim(s) 3, 10, 18. Georgin in view of Yamamoto and Cahill further teaches a third electric brake actuator disposed adjacent the pressure plate and configured to apply the braking force to the pressure plate, the third electric brake actuator including the parking brake mechanism; and a fourth electric brake actuator disposed adjacent the pressure plate and configured to apply the braking force to the pressure plate (Georgin :fig. 2, fig. 3a, fig. 3b).
Regarding claim(s) 4, 11. Georgin in view of Yamamoto and Cahill further teaches wherein the first electric brake actuator is disposed between the second electric brake actuator and the fourth electric brake actuator and opposite the third electric brake actuator (Georgin :fig. 2, fig. 3a, fig. 3b).
Regarding claim(s) 6, 15. Georgin in view of Yamamoto and Cahill further teaches wherein the first electric brake actuator is configured to engage the parking brake mechanism after applying the braking force, the parking brake mechanism preventing the wheel from rotating (Georgin :fig. 2, fig. 3a, fig. 3b).
Regarding claim(s) 8, 12. Georgin in view of Yamamoto and Cahill further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, further cause the controller to: receive a third request to disengage the parking brake mechanism; and send a disengage signal, in response to the third request, to the first electric brake actuator to disengage the parking brake mechanism(Yamamoto: Fig. 2, FIG. 2 is a diagram that illustrates logical states of an embodiment of a brake status indicator under a parking condition, and FIG. 3 is a diagram that illustrates logical states of an embodiment of a brake status indicator under a towing condition. These diagrams depict the various active (shaded) and inactive (unshaded) states of a Brake On element 202, a Parking Brake Set element 204, and a Brake Off element 206 for different operating conditions.).
Regarding claim(s) 13, 16, 17. Georgin in view of Yamamoto and Cahill further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, further cause the controller to: send a third signal, after the parking brake mechanism is engaged, to the first electric brake actuator and to the second electric brake actuator, the third signal commanding the first electric brake actuator to stop applying the second braking force to the brake assembly, and the third signal commanding the second electric brake actuator to stop applying the first braking force to the brake assembly (Georgin :fig. 2, fig. 3a, fig. 3b and Yamamoto: Fig. 2, FIG. 2 is a diagram that illustrates logical states of an embodiment of a brake status indicator under a parking condition, and FIG. 3 is a diagram that illustrates logical states of an embodiment of a brake status indicator under a towing condition. These diagrams depict the various active (shaded) and inactive (unshaded) states of a Brake On element 202, a Parking Brake Set element 204, and a Brake Off element 206 for different operating conditions.)
Regarding claim(s) 19. Georgin in view of Yamamoto and Cahill further teaches further comprising: sending, by the controller, the engage parking brake signal to a fifth electric brake actuator coupled to a second brake assembly in response to the first request, the second brake assembly including the fifth electric brake actuator and a sixth electric brake actuator, the second brake assembly coupled to the wheel; and sending, by the controller, the parking mechanism engage signal to the fifth electric brake actuator (Yamamoto: Fig. 2, FIG. 2 is a diagram that illustrates logical states of an embodiment of a brake status indicator under a parking condition, and FIG. 3 is a diagram that illustrates logical states of an embodiment of a brake status indicator under a towing condition. These diagrams depict the various active (shaded) and inactive (unshaded) states of a Brake On element 202, a Parking Brake Set element 204, and a Brake Off element 206 for different operating conditions.)
Regarding claim(s) 20. Georgin in view of Yamamoto and Cahill further teaches sending, by the controller, the engage parking brake signal to a seventh electric brake actuator coupled to a third brake assembly in response to the first request, the third brake assembly including the seventh electric brake actuator and an eighth electric brake actuator, the third brake assembly coupled to a second wheel; and sending, by the controller, the parking mechanism engage signal to the seventh electric brake actuator (Yamamoto: Fig. 2, FIG. 2 is a diagram that illustrates logical states of an embodiment of a brake status indicator under a parking condition, and FIG. 3 is a diagram that illustrates logical states of an embodiment of a brake status indicator under a towing condition. These diagrams depict the various active (shaded) and inactive (unshaded) states of a Brake On element 202, a Parking Brake Set element 204, and a Brake Off element 206 for different operating conditions.)
Regarding claim(s) 21. Georgin also silent to wherein the second electric brake actuator is lighter than the first electric brake actuator. However, it is well-known in the art that a parking braking actuator system is smaller than a normal braking actuator system. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to recognized that second electric brake actuator is lighter than the first electric brake actuator because the second electric brake actuator would have less mechanical and/or electrical components.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRUC M DO whose telephone number is (571)270-5962. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-6PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramón Mercado, Ph.D. can be reached on (571) 270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRUC M DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights