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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0141534 A1 to Prehofer.
Re-claims 1, 9 and 16, Prehofer discloses an apparatus and method comprising: at least one memory device (see paragraph 36 lines 12-15); a processor executes instructions to determine a braking event that corresponds to a non-anti-lock braking event (it is noted a wear determination routine is carried out continuously, see paragraph 21, and as such will include braking events that are non-anti-lock braking events); in response to the braking event corresponding to the non-anti-lock braking event, determine a thickness and a wear based on at least a first measurement from a rotary sensor (such as from a sliding speed or running speed) operatively coupled to a brake rotor and a second measurement from a pressure sensor (as determined by a cylinder pressure or contact pressure, see paragraph 21) operatively coupled to a flow path of a brake fluid. The apparatus and method is carried out on a non-transitory machine readable storage medium (see figure 3 and paragraph 36).
Re-claims 2, 15 and 17, the thickness and wear are determined by a brake pad coefficient (see determination of wear values, paragraphs 27-29).
Re-claims 3 and 18, the first measurement includes a sliding velocity of the brake pad relative to the brake rotor (see paragraph 21), the second measurement includes a contact pressure (paragraph 21).
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.
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, 8, 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102016215725 A1 to Kreis et al.
Re-claims 1, 9 and 16, Kreis et al. teach an apparatus and method comprising: at least one memory device (i.e. control unit 10 for storing and comparing various measured parameters, non-transitory machine readable storage medium, see at least page 2 paragraphs 2-4 and 9, through the use of software); at least one processor (as part of unit 10) executes instructions to: determine at least a wear of the brake pad based on at least operating parameters (see page 2 last paragraph to page 3 paragraphs 1-5 of the translation) of a motor 7 associated with pumping a brake fluid (the motor acts to pressurize and thus pump a fluid from a master cylinder bore to a wheel brake). However, Kreis et al. fail to determine whether a braking event corresponds to an anti-lock braking event or a non-anti-lock braking event and in response to the braking event corresponding to the anti-lock braking event carry out the above operations. It is noted that Kreis et al. teach the apparatus capable of carrying out an anti-lock braking function utilizing ABS valve unit 4. As such the apparatus of Kreis et al. is capable of determining an necessary anti-lock brake condition, such as determined from wheel speed sensors (longitudinal deceleration events, see page 4). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recognized when the vehicle is in an anti-locking braking event by simply utilizing the information from wheel slip values, and to have carried out the brake pad wear determination during this event.
Re-claim 8, the apparatus of Kreis et al. carries out anti-lock braking events, which would include the use of the motor 7 when having to increase a pressure to the wheel brakes, the processor 10 would thus determine braking the event corresponds to the anti-lock braking event.
Claim(s) 4, 7, 13, 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreis et al. in view of US 5,116,109 to Kuwana et al.
Re-claim 4, Kreis et al. fail to teach the structure of the speed sensors (i.e. longitudinal sensing elements) that are part of the ABS operations.
Kuwana et al. teach a wheel speed sensor in the form of a Hall effect sensor, as is known in the art. This is one type of sensor used to detect and measure a wheel or rotational speed, with information later used in anti-lock braking events. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the apparatus of Kreis et al. with Hall effect sensors for detecting wheel speeds as taught by Kuwana et al., as these sensors are routinely used for measuring rotational speed.
Re-claims 7, 13 and 20, Kuwana et al. teach how actuation of solenoid valves results in reduction of a brake pressure associated with a wheel experiencing a lock condition, or excessive slip (see column 2 lines 23-68). The routine of activated and deactivating solenoid valves is common when in a lock condition, thus indicating at least an anti-lock braking event. Non-actuation of the valves would be indicative of a non-anti-lock braking event. This knowledge is known to those in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recognized when the system of Kreis et al. was in an anti-lock braking event or in a non-anti-lock braking event based upon actuation of the valves as taught by Kuwana et al.
Re-claim 14, the operation of the motor pressurizes (or pumps up) the brake fluid.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prehofer in view or Kuwana.
Prehofer fail to teach the type of rotary sensor used for determining information such as running speed.
Kuwana et al. teach a wheel speed sensor in the form of a Hall effect sensor, as is known in the art. This is one type of sensor used to detect and measure a wheel or rotational speed, and thus running speed (i.e. vehicle speed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the apparatus of Prehofer with Hall effect sensors for detecting running speeds as taught by Kuwana et al., as these sensors are routinely used for measuring speed or motion.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prehofer.
Prehofer teaches determining contact pressure (paragraph 21) based on the second measurement. Prehofer further teaches the determination of sliding speed (v) and braking time. From this information one can determine a sliding distance using the known formula v=d/t. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have realized one could determine a sliding distance based upon the data already collected, as this information could further assist in the monitoring of the brake pad wear.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 11-12, and 19 are 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. Marmara teaches monitoring a motor current for determining a brake pad wear. Klein teaches a brake pad wear determination.
Any inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas Williams whose telephone number is 571-272-7128. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday from 6:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
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.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-6584.
TJW
December 4, 2025
/THOMAS J WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616