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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it currently exceeds 150 words (151). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: in line 12 the limitation “force-trale” is recited. This appears to be a typo. 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 4 and 11-14 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 4, the limitation “a housing” in line 2. It is unclear if this is the same housing defined in claim 1 from which claim 4 depends. It is also unclear as to how claim 4 further defines the location of the travel sensor. Amended claim 1 defines wherein the travel sensor is "disposed in a housing adjacent the actuation piston", claim 4 also recites wherein the travel sensor is received in a portion of a housing of the vehicle brake adjacent to the actuation piston.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “a housing” in line 2. It is unclear if this is the same housing defined in claim 1 from which claim 11 depends. It is also unclear as to how claim 11 further defines the location of the travel sensor. Amended claim 1 defines wherein the travel sensor is "disposed in a housing adjacent the actuation piston", claim 11 also recites wherein the travel sensor is received in a portion of a housing of the vehicle brake adjacent to the actuation piston.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7-9, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fargier et al. (US-4809824) in view of Itakura et al. (US-20210197777).
Regarding claim 1, Fargier et al. discloses an electromechanical vehicle brake (at least figs 1-3) comprising an electric motor (30); an actuation piston (1) configured to apply a braking force to a braking assembly (3), a ball screw drive (14) including a spindle (15) rotatable by the electric motor and a ball screw nut (13) displaceable along the spindle (figs 1-3) and received within the actuation piston, wherein the ball screw nut (13) engages a stop (stepped bore 10/11 at 20) at an inner axial end of the actuation piston (fig 3) in an actuation direction (towards pad 2), a spring element (18/20) positioned within the actuation piston (fig 3) between the stop (stepped bore 10/11 at 20) and the ball screw nut (13), the spring element having a predetermined characteristic force-travel curve (at least wherein 18 bias the nut and plunger at a predetermined and constant force); a travel sensor (54) disposed in a housing adjacent the actuation piston (fig 3, cover 57), wherein the travel sensor is configured to detect a linear displacement of the actuation piston by sensing movement, and a control unit (control box (not shown)) configured to determine a braking force applied by the actuation piston based on the detected linear displacement and characteristic curve of the spring element (at least wherein sensor 54 for the axial application load of the brakes triggers the cut-off of the excitation to the clutch 38 as soon as the application load exceeds a recommended value given by a braking control or monitoring member).
Regarding claims 1, Fargier et al. discloses wherein the sensor 54 is installed at the electric motor but lacks wherein a signal transmitter is arranged on the actuation piston. Itakura et al. teaches ([0029] and fig 1) a brake control device (10) that detects (32) the position of a brake piston (12a) on a feed screw (12b), wherein a signal transmitter (32) is arranged on the actuation piston ([0029], wherein the position sensor 32 may be attached to the piston 12a such that the position of the piston 12a can be directly detected).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange a brake sensor on the actuation piston as taught by Itakura et al. at least in order to provide variety of sensed parts of a braking system past a simple pad wear indicator and directly detect the piston position (Itakura et al., [0029]).
Regarding claim 4, Fargier et al. discloses wherein the travel sensor (54) is received in a portion of a housing (5a) of the vehicle brake adjacent to the actuation piston (1). It has been interpreted that (54) is adjacent (1) in at least fig 3.
Regarding claim 7, Fargier et al. discloses wherein the braking assembly is a floating caliper brake (fig 1, 5).
Regarding claim 8, Fargier et al. discloses method for determining a position of an electromechanical vehicle brake (2) according to Claim 1, detecting with the travel sensor (54), a linear displacement position of the actuation piston (indicated by at least when predetermined load exceeds threshold), determining by the control unit the braking force currently applied by the actuation piston (1) based on the detected linear displacement and the characteristic curve of the spring element (at least col. 2, lines 57-61).
Regarding claim 9, Fargier et al. discloses wherein a current actuation current of the electric motor (30) and/or a current torque of the spindle (15) is additionally considered (at least col. 3, lines 10-15).
Regarding claim 16, Fargier et al. discloses wherein a current torque of the spindle is additionally considered (at least when the load sensor 54 has detected the disappearance of the brake application load).
Regarding claim 17, Fargier et al. discloses wherein a current actuation current of the electric motor and a current torque of the spindle is additionally considered (at least col. 3, lines 10-15 and when the load sensor 54 has detected the disappearance of the brake application load).
Claims 3, 5, 6, 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fargier et al. (US-4809824) in view of Itakura et al. (US-20210197777) and in further view of Heeder et al. (US-20190120313).
Regarding claim 3, Fargier et al. lack and Itakura et al lack wherein the travel sensor is a Hall sensor. Heeder et al. teaches a position sensing system for a vehicle brake wherein the position sensor is a Hall sensor ([0062], 216/226/1101).
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 Hall sensor to detect the position of moving parts at least for reasons of low maintenance and wear life as the non-contacting parts have virtually an infinite life.
Regarding claims 5, 6, 12, 13 and 15, Fargier et al. and Itakura et al lack a printed circuit board. Heeder et al. teaches a position sensing system for a vehicle brake wherein the position sensor is electrically contacted via a printed circuit board (at least [0072], [0082], [0085]) and/or is part of the control unit ([0072]).
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 printed circuit board as taught by Heeder et al. at least to ensure the electrical connection locally between the components included in the braking system, avoiding electrical faults and short circuits.
Regarding claim 11, Fargier et al. discloses wherein the travel sensor (54) is received in a portion of a housing (5a) of the vehicle brake adjacent to the actuation piston (1). It has been interpreted that (54) is adjacent (1) in at least fig 3.
Regarding claim 14, Fargier et al. discloses wherein the braking assembly is a floating caliper brake (fig 1, 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the prior art of record lacks wherein the sensor detects position of the piston because the load sensor of Fargier is located on the screw shaft and reads force on the screw shaft, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The sensor of Fargier has been interpreted to detect the piston position at least in that the load sensor detects and reacts to a piston position directly correlated to the load sensed. Applicant also argues that Fargier lacks wherein the braking force is based on a characteristic curve of the spring element, Examiner respectfully disagrees. It has been interpreted that at least the spring /washer 18/20 exhibits a predetermined spring force following a force travel curve and contributes to the calculation of force/position detected.
Applicant has also argued that the combination to teach wherein the sensor or signal transmitter is located on the piston is improper because the teaching reference, Heeder et al., teaches a sensor for sensing pad wear not piston displacement. While Heeder teaches a general sensing of the piston position to determine pad wear, it has not been relied upon for detection of pad wear, only the sensing of parts with relation to one another on a brake apparatus. As set forth above, Heeder et al. has no longer been relied upon for teaching the sensor location. Itakura et al. teaches ([0029] and fig 1) a brake control device (10) that detects (32) the position of a brake piston (12a) on a feed screw (12b), wherein a signal transmitter (32) is arranged on the actuation piston ([0029], wherein the position sensor 32 may be attached to the piston 12a such that the position of the piston 12a can be directly detected).
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 JAMES K HSIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-6259. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5, Monday-Friday.
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.
/J.K.H/ Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/DAVID R MORRIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights