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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/27/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-24 are objected to because of the following informalities: There appears to have been an erroneous claim 22 added between claim 23 and canceled claim 24. 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 1-23 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 claims 1 and 12, the limitation “determining/to determine a brake pad wear caused for each of said plurality of braking events on the basis of the sum of the determined energy inputted, an environmental condition and a load condition” is not clear. In at least [0039] of Applicant’s disclosure, “the load conditions during the active braking are an input and considered in determining the energy inputted during the braking event”. It is not clear how the load conditions can be summed with the determined energy inputted if the load condition is used to determine the energy inputted. The limitation is also unclear because in at least [0039-0040] of Applicant’s disclosure, the brake pad wear is not determined by a summation of the determined energy inputted, an environmental condition and a load condition. In [0039], the energy inputted during the brake event is determined by a summation. It is shown as: “Brake event_1-n = Active braking_1-n + Load condition_1-n + Environmental conditions_1-n”. Determining the brake pad wear is described in [0040] as a summation of the brake events (Pad wear on wheel end_n [mm] = Brake event_1 + Brake event_2 + …. + Brake event_n).
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 1-10, 12-20, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Howell et al. (US-20080236269).
Regarding claim 1, Howell et al. discloses a method for estimating wear for a brake pad of a vehicle (figs 1-4), the brake pad being arranged at a wheel end of an axle of the vehicle ([0019]), the method comprising: determining energy inputted for braking at the wheel end for each of a plurality of braking events of the vehicle while the vehicle is moving (fig 2, at least 68/70/72); determining a brake pad wear caused for each of said plurality of braking events on the basis of the sum of the determined energy inputted (at least 68/70) and an environmental condition (14) and a load condition (figs 1-2, at least 12); and, determining a total brake pad wear on a basis of the determined brake pad wear for each braking event ([0014], fig 2, at least 74/76/78). It has been interpreted that the pad wear has been determined by adding or summing all the relevant data in figs 1-2 in order to more acutely estimate the determined pad wear. In at least figures 1-2, Howell shows a flow of data to a central processor. It has been interpreted that the flow of data is added together and processed as a basis for pad wear.
Regarding claim 2, Howell et al. discloses wherein said determining energy inputted for braking at the wheel end includes measuring at least one of brake pressure (30), active brake time (38), cooling time (36), braking profile (34), and at least one brake component temperature (26) (fig 1, 12 and [0016]-[0020]).
Regarding claim 3, Howell et al. discloses wherein the at least one brake component temperature includes at least one of a brake drum temperature and a brake disc temperature ([0007]).
Regarding claim 4, Howell et al. discloses wherein said determining energy inputted includes determining average brake pressure applied, effective braking time, and vehicle speed reduction ([0021]-[0026]).
Regarding claim 5, Howell et al. discloses wherein said determining energy inputted is further based on a predetermined pressure factor (fig 1, 12/14/16 and at least [0019], 30).
Regarding claim 6, Howell et al. discloses displaying a notification to an operator or a server when the determined total brake pad wear exceeds a maximum brake pad wear threshold (fig 4).
Regarding claim 7, Howell et al. discloses determining the environmental condition on a basis of a brake component temperature (at least 26), an ambient temperature (at least 54), and a brake activation frequency (38 and at least [0014]-[0016]).
Regarding claim 8, Howell et al. discloses wherein said determining the environmental condition is further based on a predetermined environmental factor (fig 1, 14 and at least [0017]).
Regarding claim 9, Howell et al. discloses determining the load condition on a basis of at least one of an axle load of the axle, a dynamic load shift, and a load factor (fig 1, 14, 40 and at least [0017] and [0030]).
Regarding claim 10, Howell et al. discloses determining a tendency to lock when a braking friction at the wheel is lower than at other wheels of the vehicle by a predetermined threshold (at least wherein said tendency has been interpreted to describe an ABS event determined at least by 38); and, reducing a pressure in a brake chamber associated with the wheel when the tendency to lock is determined at the wheel (12/38, fig 1, [0016], [0019], and [0026], at least wherein reducing the pressure has been interpreted as a traction control event controlled by 12/38).
Regarding claim 12, Howell et al. discloses a control unit including a non-transitory storage medium having program code stored thereon (fig 1); said control unit being configured to determine energy inputted for braking at the wheel end for each of a plurality of braking events of the vehicle while the vehicle is moving (fig 1-2at least 68/70/72)); said control unit being further configured, via said program code, to determine a brake pad wear caused for each of said plurality of braking events on the basis of the sum of the determined energy inputted (at least 68/70), an environmental condition (14), and a load condition (figs 1-4, 12 and [0016]-[0020]); and, said control unit being further configured to determine a total brake pad wear on a basis of the determined brake pad wear for each braking event (fig 4). It has been interpreted that the pad wear has been determined by adding or summing all the relevant data in figs 1-2 in order to more acutely estimate the determined pad wear. In at least figures 1-2, Howell shows a flow of data to a central processor. It has been interpreted that the flow of data is added together and processed as a basis for pad wear.
Regarding claim 13, Howell et al. discloses wherein said control unit is configured to receive measurement data of at least one of a brake pressure (30), an active brake time (34), a cooling time (36), a braking profile (34 or 38), and a brake component temperature (26) in order to determine energy inputted for braking at the wheel end (fig 1-2).
Regarding claim 14, Howell et al. discloses wherein the brake component temperature includes at least one of a brake drum temperature and a brake disc temperature ([0007]).
Regarding claim 15, Howell et al. discloses wherein said control unit is configured to determine average brake pressure applied, effective braking time, and vehicle speed reduction so as to determine the energy inputted ([0021]-[0026]).
Regarding claim 16, Howell et al. discloses wherein said control unit is configured to display a notification to an operator or a server when the determined total brake pad wear exceeds a maximum brake pad wear threshold (fig 4).
Regarding claim 17, Howell et al. discloses wherein said control unit is configured to determine the environmental condition on a basis of a brake component temperature (at least 26), an ambient temperature (at least 54), and a brake activation frequency (38 and at least [0014]-[0016]).
Regarding claim 18, Howell et al. discloses wherein said control unit is configured to determine the environmental condition further based on a predetermined environmental factor (fig 1, 14 and at least [0017]).
Regarding claim 19, Howell et al. discloses wherein the control unit is further configured to determine the load condition on a basis of at least one of an axle load of the axle, a dynamic load shift, and a load factor (fig 1, 14, 40 and at least [0017] and [0030]).
Regarding claim 20, Howell et al. discloses wherein the control unit is further capable of reducing the pressure in a brake chamber when a tendency to lock is determined at the wheel associated with the brake chamber (at least wherein said tendency has been interpreted to describe an ABS event determined at least by 38), wherein said tendency to lock is determined when a braking friction at the wheel is lower than at other wheels of the vehicle by a predetermined threshold (12/38, fig 1, [0016], [0019], and [0026], at least wherein a lower friction has been interpreted as a traction control event controlled by 12/38).
Regarding claim 22, Howell et al. discloses an electronic braking system for a vehicle ([at least 0016]), the electronic braking system comprising the pad wear estimation system of claim 12.
Regarding claim 23, Howell et al. discloses a vehicle ([0007]) comprising the electronic braking system of claim 22.
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 11 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howell et al. (US-20080236269) in view of Hartmann et al. (US-20090164172).
Regarding claims 11 and 21, Howell et al. discloses wherein brake controller (12) includes a processor (34) providing brake system dynamics, a processor (36) providing brake cooling rate and a processor (38) that provides signals from an anti-lock brake system (ABS), traction control system (TCS), electronic control system (ECS) and an ACC. All or most of the calculations done in the processors 26-38 are currently available on vehicles and/or are well known to those skilled in the art. In other words, Howell et al. discloses an anti-lock brake system (ABS) and traction control system (TCS) but does not specifically describe what ABS and TCS systems are because it is widely known.
Howell et al. is silent as to what the ABS/TCS calculations are with regards to wheel speed. Hartmann et al. teaches a method of determining a performance parameter of a brake and specifically friction values (Title, [0022]). Hartmann et al. teaches wherein a friction at the wheel is determined via a comparison of an individual wheel speed at the wheel with an average reference speed calculated from individual wheel speeds of all wheels monitored by a braking system ([0022], at least wherein friction values are collated and associated with corresponding wheel speeds).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine friction values during ABS/TCT events using parameters including wheel speed as disclosed and taught by Howell et al. and Hartmann et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1 and 12, Applicant argues that the prior art of record lacks determining a brake pad wear caused for each of said plurality of braking events on the basis of the sum of the determined energy inputted, an environmental condition and a load condition, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant notes the equation: “Brake event_1-n = Active braking_1-n + Load condition_1-n + Environmental conditions_1-n”, however that is not the equation disclosed for determining pad wear, as required by claims 1 and 12. As disclosed in [0039], that is the equation for measuring the energy inputted. The equation for determining pad wear has been later disclosed in [0040] as a summation of the brake events: “Pad wear on wheel end_n [mm] = Brake event_1 + Brake event_2 + …. + Brake event_n”. As claimed, claims 1 and 12 require a summation of the determined energy inputted, an environmental condition and a load condition. This presents a new issue wherein said summation requires inputs that do not appear to be disclosed as claimed. In [0039] of Applicant’s disclosure, “the load conditions during the active braking are an input and considered in determining the energy inputted during the braking event”. It is not clear how the load conditions can be summed with the determined energy inputted if the load condition is used to determine the energy inputted. With regards to the amendment requiring a summation of inputs, it has been interpreted that the pad wear has been determined in Howell by adding or summing all the relevant data in figs 1-2 in order to more acutely estimate or determined pad wear. In at least figures 1-2, Howell shows a flow of data to a central processor. It has been interpreted that the flow of data is added together and processed as a basis for pad wear.
Conclusion
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.
/JAMES K HSIAO/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights