DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Status of Claims
This Final Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on April 28th, 2026 for application no. 18/379,174 filed on October 12th, 2023. Claims 1-16 and 18-20 are pending. In the present amendment, claims 1, 3-5, 9, 11-13, 16 and 18-19 are amended, and claim 17 is canceled.
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 3-5, 8 and 11-13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 3 (lines 3-4), in the recitation of “a difference between the driving current of the motor and a target current of the motor is greater than a reference value” the difference between the “upper current limit” now recited in claim 1 and the “reference value” recited in claim 3 is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “a difference between the driving current of the motor and a target current of the motor is greater than the upper current limit” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 4 (lines 3-4), in the recitation of “a difference between the driving current of the motor and a target current of the motor is greater than a reference value” the difference between the “upper current limit” now recited in claim 1 and the “reference value” recited in claim 4 is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “a difference between the driving current of the motor and a target current of the motor is greater than the upper current limit” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 5 (lines 3-5), in the recitation of “a difference between the driving current of the motor and a target current of the motor is greater than a reference value” the difference between the “upper current limit” now recited in claim 1 and the “reference value” recited in claim 5 is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “a difference between the driving current of the motor and a target current of the motor is greater than the upper current limit” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 8 (lines 5-7), in the recitation of “control the plurality of first valves to open a third flow path extending from the first chamber of the cylinder block to the wheel cylinder” the difference between the “first flow path” recited in claim 1 and the “third flow path” recited in claim 8 is unclear. As seen in Figs. 2-3, a single flow path extends from the first chamber (133) of the cylinder block (131). The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 11 (lines 3-4), in the recitation of “a difference between the driving current of the motor and a target current of the motor is greater than a reference value” the difference between the “upper current limit” now recited in claim 9 and the “reference value” recited in claim 11 is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “a difference between the driving current of the motor and a target current of the motor is greater than the upper current limit” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 12 (lines 3-4), in the recitation of “a difference between the driving current of the motor and a target current of the motor is greater than a reference value” the difference between the “upper current limit” now recited in claim 9 and the “reference value” recited in claim 12 is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “a difference between the driving current of the motor and a target current of the motor is greater than the upper current limit” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 13 (lines 4-5), in the recitation of “a difference between the driving current of the motor and a target current of the motor is greater than a reference value” the difference between the “upper current limit” now recited in claim 9 and the “reference value” recited in claim 13 is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “a difference between the driving current of the motor and a target current of the motor is greater than the upper current limit” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant's arguments filed April 28th, 2026 are in response to the Office Action mailed February 2nd, 2026. The Applicant's arguments have been fully considered.
Response to Claim Objections
Regarding Claim 9, Applicant’s amendment addresses a minor informality indicated in the previous Office Action. As such, the claim objection is withdrawn.
Response to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Regarding Claim 8, Applicant’s argument that “While claim 1 recites "a first flow path extending from the pump to a wheel cylinder", claim 8 recites "a third flow path extending from the first chamber of the cylinder block to the wheel cylinder" (emphasis added). Therefore, "a first flow path {of claim 17 extending from the pump to a wheel cylinder" and "a third flow path {of claim 87 extending from the first chamber of the cylinder block to the wheel cylinder" are different. Therefore, the Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the § 112 rejection of claim 8” (p. 9) is not persuasive as Applicant has not identified in any of the relevant figures a third flow path extending from the first chamber (133) of the cylinder block (131) to the single wheel cylinder (13 or 14) recited in claims 1 and 8. Examiner would encourage Applicant to point to the relevant figures and reference numerals that support the recitation if Applicant still believes the recitation is clearly defined in the Applicant’s disclosure.
Response to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and/or 103
Regarding Claims 1, 9 and 16, Applicant has recited features that distinguish from those taught by the prior art of Kyo (KR 10-2020-0023935) and Hotani (US 9,050,956). See allowable subject matter presented below.
In conclusion, amended claims 3-5, 8 and 11-13 is rejected. See detailed and relevant rejections set forth above. Amended claims 1-2, 6-7, 9-10, 14-16 and 18-20 are allowed. See allowable subject matter set forth below.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 9-10, 14-16 and 18-20 are allowed.
Claims 3-5 and 11-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office Action.
Regarding Claim 8, a determination of allowability will be considered after Applicant’s response to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) presented above.
Reasons for allowance, if applicable, will be the subject of a separate communication to the Applicant or patent owner, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.104 and MPEP § 1302.14.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, Applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James J. Taylor II whose telephone number is (571) 272-4074. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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 J. TAYLOR II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655
/JAMES J TAYLOR II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights