Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/385,393

ELECTRO-MECHANICAL BRAKE SYSTEM AND CONTROL METHOD THEREOF

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Oct 31, 2023
Examiner
IRVIN, SHEA WOODROW
Art Unit
3616
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
HL Mando Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
50%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
0%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 50% of resolved cases
50%
Career Allow Rate
1 granted / 2 resolved
-2.0% vs TC avg
Minimal -50% lift
Without
With
+-50.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
28
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
52.2%
+12.2% vs TC avg
§102
22.2%
-17.8% vs TC avg
§112
25.6%
-14.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 2 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 . Foreign Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed 31st October 2023 cites a Japanese Patent “2003-22172” this is the incorrect patent number for the corresponding attached Foreign Reference filed 31st October 2023. The correct patent number should read “2003-022172”. The annotated IDS has this correction added. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yokoyama (US 20220153251 A1). Regarding Claim 1, Yokoyama discloses A brake device, comprising: a power transmitter (22D) configured to advance or retract a piston (22E) to press a pair of pad plates, to which brake pads (22F) are attached, toward a disk (D); a driving motor (22B) configured to provide rotational force to the piston; a parking actuator (23) connected to the driving motor to maintain parking braking state of a vehicle; and a controller (24) configured to: control the driving motor and the parking actuator, and control the parking actuator based on a rotational position of the driving motor and a clamping force due to contact of the disk with the brake pads (see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, [0007], [0023]). Regarding Claim 2, Yokoyama discloses the brake device of claim 1, further comprising: a force sensor (26) configured to detect the clamping force due to contact of the disk with the brake pads (see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, [0023]). Regarding Claim 3, Yokoyama discloses the brake device of claim 1, further comprising a motor current sensor (27) configured to detect a drive current of the driving motor, wherein the controller (24) is configured to estimate the clamping force based on the drive current (see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, [0023]). Regarding Claim 4, Yokoyama discloses the brake device of claim 1, wherein the controller (24) is configured to: control the parking actuator (23) to engage when the clamping force reaches a target engagement clamping force in parking engagement mode, and detect and store a position of the driving motor as parking motor position (see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, [0037]). Regarding Claim 5, Yokoyama discloses the brake device of claim 4, wherein the controller (24) is configured to drive the driving motor in a forward direction in parking release mode (see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, [0039]). Regarding Claim 6, Yokoyama discloses the brake device of claim 5, wherein the controller (24) is configured to control the parking actuator (23) to release when the clamping force reaches a target release clamping force in parking release mode (see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, [0039]). Regarding Claim 7, Yokoyama discloses the brake device of claim 6, wherein the target release clamping force is greater than the target engagement clamping force (see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, [0038-0039]). Regarding Claim 8, Yokoyama discloses the brake device of claim 5, wherein the controller (24) is configured to: detect the position of the driving motor in parking release mode, and control the parking actuator to release when the position of the driving motor reaches the parking motor position (see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, [0023]). Regarding Claim 9, Yokoyama discloses the brake device of claim 5, wherein the controller (24) is configured to: detect the position of the driving motor in parking release mode when the clamping force reaches the target release clamping force and control the parking actuator to release when the detected position of the driving motor reaches the parking motor position (see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, [0023]). Regarding Claim 10, Yokoyama discloses the brake device of claim 5, wherein the controller is configured to drive the driving motor in a backward direction after controlling the parking actuator to release in parking release mode (see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, [0038-0039]). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 11-12, 14-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama (US 20220153251 A1) in view of Masuda (US 20220105919 A1). Regarding Claim 11, Yokoyama discloses a method of controlling a brake device including a power transmitter (22D) configured to advance or retract a piston (22E) to press a pair of pad plates, to which brake pads (22F) are attached, toward a disk (D), a driving motor (22B) configured to provide rotational force to the piston (22E) and a parking actuator (23) connected to the driving motor (22B) to maintain parking braking state of a vehicle, comprising: obtaining a clamping force due to contact of the disk with the brake pads (see Fig. 2, [0034]). Yokoyama appears to disclose a method of controlling the parking actuator based on the clamping force and rotational position of the driving motor, but does not explicitly detail the method. Masuda teaches a method of controlling a brake device comprising: controlling the parking actuator based on clamping force and rotational position of the driving motor (see Fig. 4, [0099], [0111]). It would have been obvious to combine the method of controlling a brake device of Masuda with the method of controlling a brake device of Yokoyama in order to get a more accurate control of the brake device, resulting in operation with reduced malfunction (see US 20220105919 A1 [Masuda]; [0010]). Regarding Claim 12, Yokoyama discloses wherein the obtaining of the clamping force comprises obtaining the clamping force through a force sensor (26) configured to detect the clamping force due to contact of the disk with the brake pads (see Fig. 2, [0023]). Regarding Claim 14, Masuda teaches wherein the controlling of the parking actuator comprises controlling the parking actuator to engage when the clamping force reaches a target engagement clamping force in parking engagement mode (Fig. 4, Fig. 9, [0106-0109]). Regarding Claim 15, Masuda teaches wherein the controlling of the parking actuator comprises driving the driving motor in a forward direction in parking release mode (see Fig. 4, [0106-0109]). Regarding Claim 16, Masuda teaches wherein the controlling of the parking actuator comprises controlling the parking actuator to release when the clamping force reaches a target release clamping force in parking release mode (see Fig. 4, Fig. 9, [0110-0111]). Regarding Claim 18, Masuda teaches wherein the controlling of the parking actuator comprises: detecting the position of the driving motor in parking release mode and controlling the parking actuator to release when the position of the driving motor reaches the parking motor position (see Fig. 4, [0110-0111]). Regarding Claim 19, Masuda teaches wherein the controlling of the parking actuator comprises: detecting the position of the driving motor in parking release mode when the clamping force reaches the target release clamping force and controlling the parking actuator to release when the position of the driving motor reaches the parking motor position (see Fig. 4, Fig. 9, [0110-0111]). Regarding Claim 20, Masuda teaches wherein the controlling of the parking actuator comprises driving the driving motor in a backward direction after controlling the parking actuator to release in parking release mode (see Fig. 4, [0110-0111]). Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama (US 20220153251 A1) modified by Masuda (US 20220105919 A1) as applied to Claim 11, above, further in view of Kobune et. al. (US 20170291585 A1). Regarding Claim 13, Yokoyama modified by Masuda teach the method of controlling the brake device of claim 11. Yokoyama modified by Masuda appears to teach wherein the obtaining of the clamping force comprises: detecting a drive current of the driving motor through a motor current sensor and estimating the clamping force based on the drive current, but does not explicitly detail the estimation of forces. Kobune teaches a method of obtaining of the clamping force comprises: detecting a drive current of the driving motor through a motor current sensor and estimating the clamping force based on the drive current (see Fig. 6, [0038], [0068]). It would have been obvious to combine the method of obtaining the clamping force using a current sensor of Kobune with the method of controlling brakes of Yokoyama modified by Masuda in order to increase system redundancy and reduce reliance on mechanical property sensors. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama (US 20220153251 A1) modified by Masuda (US 20220105919 A1) as applied to Claim 11, above further in view of Kikuta et. al. (US 20010037919 A1). Regarding Claim 17, Yokoyama modified by Masuda teaches the method of controlling the brake device of claim 16. Yokoyama modified by Masuda does not teach wherein the target release clamping force is greater than the target engagement clamping force. Kikuta teaches a method of controlling a brake device wherein the target release clamping force is greater than the target engagement clamping force (see Fig. 9, [0071]). It would have been obvious to combine the method of controlling brake device with a larger release clamping force of Kikuta with the method of controlling the braked device of Yokoyama modified by Masuda in order to ensure disengagement of parking brake mechanisms. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shea Irvin whose telephone number is (571)272-9952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 - 17:00. 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. /S.W.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3616 /Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 31, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 28, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

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
50%
Grant Probability
0%
With Interview (-50.0%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 2 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