BRAKE ACTUATORS AND SYSTEMS FOR MONITORING STROKE OF BRAKE ACTUATORS
FINAL OFFICE ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant’s amendment of July 30, 2026.
SPECIFICATION
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. The Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which the Applicant may become aware of in the specification.
CLAIMS
In the event that the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the rationale supporting the rejection would be the same.
35 U.S.C. § 112
In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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.
Claims 1 - 3, 5 - 10, 21 - 25, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventors regard as the invention.
With respect to amended independent claim 1, the subject matter thereof does not correspond to the subject matter as previously set forth. Claim 1 as presented in the amendment of March 3, 2026 set forth the limitation “a sensor configured to sense a value of a combined magnetic field strength created by the first magnet and the second magnet”. However, claim 1 as currently set forth does not include such a limitation nor does the claim indicate the deletion of the limitation. Uncertainty exists as to whether the limitation has been deleted or omitted.
Claim 1 is indefinite in that the claim is directed to a system but the added limitation of “output the value of the combined magnetic field strength” appears to be directed to a step of a method. However, no such method has been previously set forth. As such, the added limitation of “output the value of the combined magnetic field strength” is unclear as to what is doing the outputting. In addition, the limitation’s reference to “the value” and “the combined magnetic field strength” are unclear because neither a value or combined magnetic field strength were previously set forth.
Additionally, the added limitation of “receive the value of the combined magnetic field strength output by the sensor” is unclear as to how the limitation relates to the existing subject matter of the claim. The references to “the value” and “the combined magnetic field strength” are unclear since no such value or combined magnetic field strength were previously set forth. And the reference to “the sensor” is indefinite since no sensor was previously set forth in the claim.
The claim is unclear as to how these added limitations relate to the existing subject matter of the claim.
Independent claim 21, the added limitation of “receiving the value of the combined magnetic field strength” is indefinite as to what is doing the receiving.
Also, claim 21 sets forth the sensing and receiving of “a value” of the combined magnetic field strength but then the determining of the push rod stroke is based on only the combined magnetic field strength and not the value of the combined magnetic field strength as argued by the Applicant. Examiner recommends changing the phrase “the combined magnetic field strength” (last line of claim) to --the value of the combined magnetic field strength--.
Amended claim 27 is also indefinite as to the reference to “the value” and “the combined magnetic field strength” since no such value or combined magnetic field strength were previously set forth.
35 U.S.C. § 103
In view of the Applicant’s amendments to the claims and corresponding arguments, the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to Weant et al. (6,501,375) as set forth in the previous Office Action (4/20/2026) has been overcome.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 - 3, 5 - 10, 21 - 25, 27, and 28 have been found to be distinct over the prior art and thus would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the above rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112.
Independent claim 1 has been found to be distinct because the prior art fails to teach or suggest the sensing, outputting, and receiving of an actual value of the combined magnetic field strength and from that, determining the push rod stroke based on that value.
Claims 2, 3, 5 - 10, 27, and 28 depend from claim 1.
Independent claim 21 has been found to be distinct because the prior art fails to teach or suggest the sensing and receiving of an actual value of the combined magnetic field strength and from that value, determining the push rod stroke.
Claims 22 - 25 depend from claim 21.
Claims 11 - 20 and 26 have been found to be allowable over the prior art.
Independent claim 11 has been found to be allowable because the prior art fails to teach or suggest the sensing, outputting, and receiving of an actual value of the combined magnetic field strength and from that, determining the push rod stroke based on that value.
Claims 12 - 20 depend from claim 11.
Independent claim 26 has been found to be allowable for the same reasons as was set forth in the previous Office Action of April 20, 2026.
Response To Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments have been considered and have been found to be persuasive.
However, the Examiner points out the claim language of claim 1 as argued by the Applicant is not consistent with the actual claim language of claim 1. This discrepancy is the basis of the above rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112.
Likewise, the claim language of claim 21 as argued by the Applicant is not consistent with the actual claim language of claim 21 in that claim 21 sets forth that the stroke of the push rod is determined based on the combined magnetic field strength and not “the value of” the combined magnetic field strength as argued.
CONTACT INFORMATION
The Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). The 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 from the Examiner should be directed to Eric S. McCall whose telephone number is 571-272-2183. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. For questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is advised to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at:
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Eric S. McCall/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
