DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement has been received and considered.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sussek U.S. 2015/0239439 in view of Fujita U.S. 2022/0355771 and Seto U.S. 2016/0052496.
Regarding claim 1, as broadly claimed, Sussek shows a parking brake apparatus (see the abstract) comprising:
an electric motor 3 configured to drive an electric mechanism 6,11, the electric mechanism being configured to press a braking member 7 against a braking target member 10 and hold a braking force; and a control apparatus configured to control driving of the electric motor 3,
Lacking in Sussek is a specific description of wherein the control apparatus stops the driving of the electric motor when a current value of the electric motor reaches a target current threshold value for stopping the driving of the electric motor when holding the braking force, and changes the target current threshold value according to a rotational acceleration of the electric motor.
However, the brake apparatus of Sussek generates an electromechanical clamping force that can be determined based on a correcting current or the current values of the brake motor. The correcting current is determined if a standard deviation thereof exceeds a limit value and motor parameters of the brake motor are determined using the correcting current. This apparatus compensates for a loss in braking force when the electrical system of the vehicle is taxed upon operation of other vehicle electrical components. As discussed in para 0010:
[0010] It is necessary to know the prevailing motor current in order to determine the actual, prevailing clamping force that is generated by the electric brake motor. The motor load torque can be calculated from the motor current and also the clamping force can be calculated by using a gear reduction ratio and the efficiency as a basis. In principle, the current and/or the voltage in the electric motor suffice as measurement values.
Seto also shows a parking brake apparatus (see figures 1 and 3 element 35) that compensates for temperature changes. In the abstract Seto states: a control unit that stops to supply the current to the motor when the current flowing in the motor reaches the motor stopping current.
The reference to Fujita shows a parking brake mechanism at 23. This device corrects unequal braking forces applied to the left and right sides of the vehicle.
In para 0065 Fujita states:
[0065] The embodiment has been described citing the “value detected by the thrust force sensor 26”, the “instructed current value for driving the electric motor 22B (the value detected by the current sensor 27 corresponding thereto)”, and the “piston position converted from the value detected by the rotational angle sensor 25 for driving the electric motor 22B” as examples of the control parameter. In this case, the control of the electric motor of the brake mechanism and the calibration of the control parameter may be performed with use of all (three) of the control parameters or may be performed with use of any one of the control parameters. Alternatively, the control of the electric motor of the brake mechanism and the calibration of the control parameter may be performed with use of two control parameters among the three control parameters or may be performed with use of a control parameter different from them. In other words, the electric motor is driven and the braking force is controlled based on at least one control parameter.
Since both references to Sussek and Seto show parking brake apparatus systems that compensate for either temperature changes or vehicle electrical shortfalls it would have been obvious to have modified the system of Sussek to stop the driving of the electric motor when a current value of the electric motor reaches a target current threshold value for stopping the driving of the electric motor when holding the braking force—since the electric motor must be stopped at some point – as taught by Seto and to have changed the aforementioned target current threshold value according to a rotational acceleration of the electric motor, since it is well known in the art that other parameters of the electric motor may be utilized or said purpose as taught by Fujita.
Regarding claims 2-5, based upon the explanation above, these limitations are considered to be met.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7123. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 A.M.-7:00P.M..
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, Rob 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
11/30/25