DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed 05/06/26 has been entered. Claims 1-16 are currently pending, with claims 12-16 are newly added. In light of the claim amendments the previous 103 rejection is withdrawn. However, revised Drawing Objections and section 112 and 103 rejections of all pending claims are detailed below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the actuator (41) “directly” applying a frictional force in a non-energized state, due to an “urging member” [see para. 0030 (“not illustrated”)], must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-16 are 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.
All pending claims are rejected because claim 1 recites that the actuator (41) “directly” applies a frictional force in a non-energized state, but it is unclear from the Drawings or Detailed Description how this is achieved. The Detailed Description mentions the use of an “urging member” at paragraph [0030], but explicitly states that it is not illustrated in the Drawings, and does not provide any detail about where it is located, how it functions, how it achieves the force application, etc. Applicant should be mindful not to include new subject matter in subsequent amendments.
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 12-14 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.
Claims 12-14 are rejected because claim 12 recite “the friction applying device (21)” at the end of the claim, but it is unclear if this refers to the “friction applying device 50” or the “another friction applying device (21).” Consistency is important here.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Tsuda in view of Severinsson
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuda (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0373589) (priority date: 10/05/20) in view of Severinsson (DE 11 2004 001 812). Tsuda is directed to a vehicle brake fluid pressure device in a motorcycle. See Abstract. Severinsson is directed to a method and arrangement for parking braking in a disc brake. See Abstract.
Claim 1: Tsuda discloses a brake system [Figs. 1-2] for a straddle-type vehicle [para. 0028] which includes at least one operator (L2) operated by a rider, wherein a mechanism portion (K2) including a friction applying device (R) which brakes a wheel [para. 0054] of the straddle-type vehicle (100) with a frictional force corresponding to at least a movement of the operator is provided, the mechanism portion further includes an operator movement sensor (31) for detecting the movement of the operator and an actuator (41) unitized with the friction applying device (50), further, a control unit (200, 240, 250, 270) which controls an output of the actuator (R1) [see para. 0055 (mechanical drum with brake shoe)] based on a detection result of the operator movement sensor to change the frictional force applied to the wheel (4) by the friction applying device (50) during normal braking is provided. See Figs. 1-3.
Tsuda discloses all the limitations of this claim except for the actuator applying a frictional force in a non-energized state, e.g., for a normal parking, default/self-locking operation. Severinsson discloses a vehicle disc brake for braking a wheel, wherein when the actuator (8) is in a non-energized state, the frictional force is applied directly the wheel by the friction applying device (50, 57, 58) due to the urging force of a spring (44). See Translation (“The parking brake spring 44 biases the brake in the applied state when the electromagnetic locking device 50, 57, 58 is de-energized”). This is similar to the instant application, which relies on an “urging member such as a spring” built into the friction applying device to provide the braking force when the actuator is non-energized. See Application, at para. 0030. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify Tsuda such that the brake device applies a brake force when the actuator is in a non-energized state with a reasonable expectation of success because this ensures a default/self-locking brake operation. This is especially useful in a parking brake situation, where energy/actuation is only needed to release the brake, but ensures that the brake is applied regardless of actuator functionality (i.e., malfunction).
Claim 2: Severinsson discloses that when the actuator is in an energized state, the frictional force applied to the wheel by the friction applying device decreases as the output of the actuator increases. See Translation.
Claim 3: Tsuda discloses that the control unit is unitized with another control unit (200, 220, 230, 260) which changes a frictional force applied to another wheel (at F) different from the wheel. See Figs. 1, 2.
Claim 4: Tsuda discloses that the control unit is unitized with the friction applying device and the actuator. See Figs. 1, 2.
Claim 5: Tsuda discloses that the control unit (62) is unitized with the operator movement sensor (92).
Claim 6: Tsuda discloses that the control unit controls the output of the actuator to change the frictional force applied to the wheel by the friction applying device during a slip control operation for controlling a slip of the wheel. See Fig. 2 (240); Fig. 4.
Claim 7: Tsuda discloses that the slip control operation includes an operation in which anti-lock braking control is executed. See Fig. 2 (260); Fig. 4.
Claim 8: Tsuda discloses that the slip control operation includes an operation in which spin suppression control is executed. See Fig. 4.
Claim 9: Tsuda discloses that the slip control operation includes an operation in which side-slip suppression control is executed. See Figs. 2, 4.
Claim 10: Tsuda discloses that the wheel braked by the friction applying device is a rear wheel of the straddle-type vehicle. See Figs. 1, 2.
Claim 11: Tsuda discloses a straddle-type vehicle which includes the brake system according to claim 1. See Figs. 1, 2.
Claim 12: Tsuda discloses another mechanism portion (100) including another friction applying device which brakes a front wheel (F) of the straddle-type vehicle with a frictional force corresponding to at least a movement of another operator (L1), and wherein when the other mechanism portion is in a non-energized state, the frictional force is applied to the front wheel by the friction applying device. See Fig. 1.
Claim 13: Tsuda discloses that the other mechanism portion includes at least one valve (1, 2, 3) controlling a flow of brake fluid, and wherein when the at least one valve is in a non-energized state, the frictional force is applied to the front wheel by the friction applying device. See Fig. 1.
Claim 14: Tsuda discloses that the other mechanism portion includes a pump (6) assembled in a fluid passage of brake fluid and a motor (20) driving the pump, and wherein when the motor is in a non-driving state, the frictional force is applied to the front wheel by the friction applying device. See Fig. 1.
Claim 15: Severinsson discloses that when the actuator is in an energized state, the frictional force applied to the wheel by the friction applying device increases as the output of the actuator decreases by operation of the operator. See Translation.
Claim 16: Severinsson discloses that when the operator is not operated, the output of the actuator is increased to an upper limit. See Translation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references 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 VISHAL R SAHNI whose telephone number is (571)270-3838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm PST.
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.
VISHAL SAHNI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/VISHAL R SAHNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 May 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights