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 and 3-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2023/0106917 A1 to Kim.
Re-claim 1, Kim discloses an electric parking brake comprising: a brake system having a braking portion installed in a rear wheel of a vehicle (see paragraph 42) that provides a friction force to the rear wheel, an Electric Parking Brake (EPB) drives motor 10 configured to operate the braking portion; an EPB power line (see figures and lines extending between the ECU elements and the motor) transfers a control signal to the EPB driving motor; a Brake Electronic Control Unit (ECU) including a first EPB control module 100 that controls the EPB driving motor through the EPB power line; and a redundant control unit 200 interposed between the brake system and the Brake ECU and configured to control the EPB driving motor, the redundant control unit 200 monitors a connection state between the Brake ECU and the EPB driving motor in real time (see at least paragraph 64 line 3, and communication between MCU 110 and 240 is done in “real time”) through the EPB power line (see at least paragraphs 43-47 and 63-67).
Re-claim 3, the redundant control unit 200 directly controls the EPB driving motor when the first EPB control module fails to control the EPB driving motor (via switch 220).
Re-claim 4, the redundant control unit 200 disconnects the Brake ECU from the EPB driving motor on the EPB power line and connect to the EPB driving motor (via switch 220). Unit 200 changes switch condition during periods when unit 100 is inoperative.
Re-claim 5, the redundant control unit 200 includes: a switch 220 for switching the EPB power line; and a second EPB control module (see various configurations for unit 200 in figures 3-5) to control the EPB driving motor.
Re-claim 6, the redundant control unit 200 further includes: a monitoring device (as part of 240, see paragraph 65) is connected to the EPB power line; a communicator receives an EPB driving signal transmitted from outside; a redundant integrated controller (such as 240 and/or 250) to which the monitoring device and the communicator are connected (see at least paragraphs 63-67).
Re-claim 7, the monitoring device monitors a state of the EPB driving motor through the EPB power line. The BUS line communicates between the first ECU and second ECU.
Re-claim 8, the redundant integrated controller operates the switch 220 to switch the EPB power line from the first EPB control module 100 to the second EPB control module 200.
Re-claim 9, the redundant integrated controller issues a command for operating the EPB driving motor to the second EPB control module, such as during periods when unit 100 is inoperative.
Re-claim 10, in a normal mode, the EPB power line connect the first EPB control module 100 to the EPB driving motor 10, and in a redundant mode, the EPB power line connects the second EPB control module 200 to the EPB driving motor (via changing the condition of the switch 220).
Re-claim 11, the redundant integrated controller operate the switch only when a signal indicating that the first EPB control module is in an abnormal state is received from the monitoring device (see paragraphs 65-66).
Re-claim 12, the EPB power line includes a first power line for improving (or increasing) a braking force of the brake system, and a second power line for reducing (such as a retraction command) a braking force of the brake system, and the switch 220 includes a first switch to switch the first power line, and a second switch to switch the second power line. Various figures are shown with multiple switches, one of which is connected to the primary power source. In addition, power commands are carried over the power lines for both increasing and decreasing the brake force. A decrease is one in which the power transmission is reversed to the motor, so as to operate the motor in the reverse direction, thus decreasing the braking force. It is noted that the instant specification is relatively silent regarding the intent of the instant claim, and fails to fully explain what the applicant intends for patent coverage.
Re-claim 13, the EPB power line is divided into an ECU portion connecting the Brake ECU to the redundant control unit, and a redundant portion connecting the redundant control unit to the EPB driving motor.
Re-claim 14, Kim discloses a method for controlling an electric brake comprising: at a redundant control unit 200, detecting an input of an Electric Parking Brake (EPB) driving signal through a communication line; at the redundant control unit, monitoring an EPB power line connecting the Brake Electronic Control Unit (ECU) to an EPB driving motor of a brake system; at the redundant control unit, operating a switch 220 when the EPB driving motor fails to operate; and at the redundant control unit, operating the EPB driving motor (see at least paragraphs 43-47 and 63-67).
Re-claim 15, the EPB driving signal is a signal instructing a second EPB control module of the redundant control unit to operate the EPB driving motor.
Re-claim 16, the operation of the switch includes: at a redundant integrated controller of the redundant control unit (i.e. portion 250), issuing a command for switching the EPB power line to the switch (see at least paragraph 65); at the switch, disconnecting the Brake ECU 100 from the EPB driving motor; and at the switch, connecting a second EPB control module 200 of the redundant control unit to the EPB driving motor 10.
Re-claim 17, operating of the EPB driving motor includes: at the redundant integrated controller, issuing an EPB driving command to the second EPB control module; and at the second EPB control module, operating the EPB driving motor. The second unit 200 operates the parking brake as requested.
Re-claim 18, the redundant integrated controller 200 is configured to operate the switch 220 by the EPB driving signal.
Re-claim 19, the redundant control unit 200 operates the switch 220 to switch a connection of the EPB power line from a normal mode to a redundant mode.
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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of DE 10 2019 215 536 A1 to Baehrle-Miller et al.
Re-claim 20, Kim fails to specify that before detecting the input (i.e. as best understood by the Office a park brake request), at a first EPB control module of the Brake ECU, operating the EPB driving motor.
Baehrle-Miller et al. teach a parking brake motor test routine carried out at a start-up of a vehicle (see paragraph 17 of the translation). This provides a method of testing the functionality of the parking brake motors prior to movement of the vehicle, and thus alert the driver to any potential issues. Therefore, as per the teachings of Baehrle-Miller, 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 parking brake system of Kim with a method of operating the EPB motor prior to receiving an input request thus carrying out a test routine as taught by Baehrle-Miller et al., thus ensuring the proper operation of the EPB driving motor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Kim discloses a real time monitoring between the first ECU 100 and the second ECU 200, and specifically internal units 110 and 240 (see paragraph 64). An inactive state of a control unit includes communication errors, or a problem that is present preventing that unit from performing its intended function (see paragraphs 45-46). A communication error is interpreted as a communication issue between the control unit in question and a driving motor of an electric park brake. Upon which a redundant control unit (such as 200/240) is utilized and takes control of the EPB driving motor for carrying out the requested brake operation. The remarks regarding the more precise failure diagnosis, such as power line breaks or motor defects, are more specific than the claim language would imply. However, it is noted that the communication failure as mentioned in Kim would appear to include a power line break. As such the rejection is maintained.
The rejection in view of VandenBerg has been withdrawn, as VandenBerg fails to clearly disclose a real time monitoring and response.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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 /THOMAS J WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 July 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights