Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/282,611

CONTROL APPARATUS FOR ELECTRIC BRAKE, ELECTRIC BRAKE APPARATUS, AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING ELECTRIC BRAKE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Sep 18, 2023
Examiner
IRVIN, THOMAS W
Art Unit
3616
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Hitachi Astemo, Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
904 granted / 1174 resolved
+25.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
1208
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
38.8%
-1.2% vs TC avg
§102
38.1%
-1.9% vs TC avg
§112
19.4%
-20.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1174 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iwagawa et al. (US 2004/0113489). In Re claims 1, 9, and 10, Iwagawa et al. disclose a control apparatus and associated method of for controlling the control apparatus of an electric brake, comprising: a control portion (22); an electric motor (24); a parking brake (11), wherein the control portion is configured to: determine a physical amount regarding a loaded stroke (S5) and an overshoot amount based on a rotation of the motor due to inertia (see S6, S116+, and pars. 0133, and 138); determine a physical amount regarding a release stroke (see figs. 17 and 18 regarding a release routine); and output a control instruction to the parking brake motor to apply/release the parking brake motor assembly (see multiple actuation/release steps). In Re claim 2, the inertial rotation of the actuating motor is an inherently present characteristic and increases with voltage, which directly controls the motor speed. In Re claim 5, Iwagawa et al. disclose at least a 0 position +2mm release stroke clearance position (par. 0132-0133). In Re claim 7, the controller includes memory (see at least pars. 0095). 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. Claims 1-7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritter (US 2017/0106848) in view of Yasui et al. (US 2015/0112564) In Re claims 1, 9, and 10, Ritter disclose a control apparatus and associated method of for controlling the control apparatus of an electric brake, comprising: a control portion (126, 226); an electric motor (210); a parking brake (100, 110), wherein the control portion is configured to: determine a physical amount regarding a loaded stroke (F(t)) and includes equations for considering motor inertia and correcting an estimated motor position (see Abstract regarding the motor position, speed, force, and current draw; par. 0071 and 00002); determine a physical amount regarding a release stroke (see Abstract regarding the motor position, speed, force, and current draw); and output a control instruction to the parking brake motor to apply/release the parking brake motor assembly (Abstract). Although Ritter discloses the presence of motor and actuator inertial effects, the reference does not specifically discuss accounting for an overshoot amount. Yasui et al. is related to braking control for electronic brakes. Yasui et al. teaches that in an electronic braking control, in the device of this type, due to influences of inertia of the electric motor, an overshoot of the braking torque may occur (par. 0003). Yasui et al. further teach accounting for, and compensating for, said motor inertial overshoot though adjusting a target inertia compensation energization amount, thereby improving the responsiveness and accuracy of the braking torque by reliably suppressing the overshoot and surplus of the braking torque. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have accounted for a braking torque overshoot resulting from inertial effects in the braking actuation motor, as taught by Yasui et al., simply to more correctly monitor and control and parking brake actuator, and provide a more reliable and accurate parking brake torque. In Re claim 2, the inertial rotation of the actuating motor is an inherently present characteristic and increases with voltage, which directly controls the motor speed. In Re claim 3, Ritter discloses estimating a braking force; and discloses brake pads (104, 106) of Ritter. Also see zero clearance in fig. 8 and par. 0065 of Ritter. In Re claim 4, See controller system dynamics (304) and force estimation model (306) of Ritter, which provides an error correction value and physical amount regarding a loaded stroke. In Re claim 5, See release position in fig. 8 of Ritter. In Re claim 6, the inertia correction of Yasui et al. is a time-series-dependent motor control, and therefore understood to encompass the claimed predetermined time (Abstract, par. 0011). In Re claim 7, the controller inherently includes memory to store values and control processes (see pars. 0111 and 0112 regarding storing values). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS W IRVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3095. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm. 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. /THOMAS W IRVIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 18, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 09, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 09, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594836
Method for Operating a Brake System of a Vehicle
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595832
BRAKE HOUSING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590615
BRAKE DISC SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583578
AIRCRAFT LANDING GEAR ARRANGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580113
SOLENOID, DAMPING FORCE ADJUSTMENT MECHANISM, AND DAMPING FORCE ADJUSTABLE SHOCK ABSORBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+14.3%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1174 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month