DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1-20 remain pending.
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 .
Response to Amendments
The Examiner accepts the amendments received on 06/05/2025.
(a) The Applicant, via the claim amendments filed, overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) claim rejections set forth in the previous Office Action. The Examiner, therefore, withdraws said rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ralea U.S. P.G. Publication 2005/0269872 A1 (hereinafter, Ralea), in view of KR20140057893A (hereinafter, Han), and further in view of KR20000006630U (hereinafter, Yu).
Regarding Claim 1, Ralea describes a brake system (electric brake system, Ralea, Paragraphs 0017-0019 and Figure 1) which controls a piston through force control and position control of an electronic actuator to press a disk and provide braking force (electromechanical actuator drives an actuator ram toward a brake disk stack, wherein the actuator ram is controlled through force control and position control, Ralea, Paragraphs 0017-0019, 0022, 0025, 0028-0035, and 0046) and is installed in a vehicle (brake system applicable to virtually any type of vehicle, Ralea, Paragraph 0018) …, the brake system comprising: a control unit that controls a position of the electronic actuator to provide braking force (controller performs closed loop position control of the actuator ram to control brake force application, Ralea, Paragraphs 0032 and 0034-0039) … .
Ralea does not specifically disclose the brake system determining whether a failure has occurred or the control unit compensating the braking force based on a deceleration of the vehicle.
Han discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitations. Han describes determining whether a failure has occurred by comparing a current deceleration of the vehicle with a deceleration corresponding to a target braking force and generating a system failure flag when the difference exceeds a predetermined amount (Han, Paragraph 0028). Han further describes compensating the braking force based on a deceleration of the vehicle by recalculating the braking force and drive amount of the electronic brake actuators when a failure is determined (Han, Paragraphs 0029-0031).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the brake system of Ralea to determine whether a failure has occurred and compensate the braking force based on a deceleration of the vehicle, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Han.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because determining a braking system failure based on vehicle deceleration and compensating the braking force would provide safer braking when an actuator does not operate as intended (Han, Paragraphs 0028-0031).
However, the combination of Ralea and Han does not specifically disclose outputting a safety mode through an indicator when a failure occurs, compensating the braking force based on a deceleration of the vehicle when the safety mode is output through the indicator, and outputting the safety mode through the indicator in response to determining that there is an error in the force control of the electronic actuator.
Yu discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitations. Yu describes outputting a safety mode through an indicator when a failure occurs by determining an abnormal state of the braking system and outputting a warning signal to operate a warning lamp when the abnormal state is determined (Yu, Specification Pages 1-3 and Figure 1). Yu further describes outputting the safety mode through the indicator in response to determining that there is an error in the force control of the electronic actuator by monitoring the operating state of the brake actuators and operating the warning lamp in response to determining an abnormal operating state of the brake actuators (Yu, Specification Pages 1-3 and Figure 1).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify the brake system of Ralea and Han to output a safety mode through an indicator when a failure occurs, compensate the braking force based on a deceleration of the vehicle when the safety mode is output through the indicator, and output the safety mode through the indicator in response to determining that there is an error in the force control of the electronic actuator, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Yu.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because providing an indication when an abnormal brake actuator condition is detected would notify the driver of the failure while allowing the braking system to compensate for the failure, thereby improving the safety of the vehicle braking system (Yu, Specification Pages 1-3 and Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 10, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Claims 2-4, 7, 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ralea U.S. P.G. Publication 2005/0269872 A1 (hereinafter, Ralea), in view of KR20140057893A (hereinafter, Han), in view of KR20000006630U (hereinafter, Yu), and further in view of Morishita U.S. P.G. Publication 2012/0139330 A1 (hereinafter, Morishita).
Regarding Claim 2, Ralea, as modified, describes the brake system of claim 1.
Ralea does not specifically describe the system to include wherein the control unit calculates target deceleration based on information of a brake pedal.
Morishita discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Morishita describes calculating a target deceleration based on a detected brake pedal stroke and a target deceleration characteristic map (Morishita, Paragraphs 0040-0045).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the system of Ralea to include wherein the control unit calculates target deceleration based on information of a brake pedal, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Morishita.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because determining a requested vehicle deceleration based on brake pedal operation provides a braking response corresponding to the driver's braking demand and desire (Morishita, Paragraphs 0040-0045).
Regarding Claim 3, Ralea, as modified, describes the brake system of claim 2.
Ralea does not specifically describe the system to include wherein a deceleration map for controlling the electronic actuator to output a braking force corresponding to the calculated target deceleration is pre-stored in the control unit.
Morishita discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Morishita describes a reference target deceleration characteristic map corresponding to brake pedal stroke is previously set and stored, the target deceleration is calculated from the target deceleration characteristic map and brake pedal stroke, and the calculated target deceleration is used as the brake target force for controlling the braking system (Morishita, Paragraphs 0040-0045 and 0078).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the system of Ralea to include wherein a deceleration map for controlling the electronic actuator to output a braking force corresponding to the calculated target deceleration is pre-stored in the control unit, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Morishita.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because determining a requested vehicle braking amount based on stored data and brake pedal operation provides a braking response corresponding to the driver's braking demand and desire (Morishita, Paragraphs 0040-0045).
Regarding Claim 4, Ralea, as modified, describes the brake system of claim 3, wherein the control unit controls a position of the piston through the electronic actuator (controller controls the position of the actuator ram through the electronic actuator to provide braking force, Ralea, Paragraphs 0032 and 0034-0039) …
Ralea does not specifically describe the system to include controlling the position of the piston through the electronic actuator based on the deceleration map.
Morishita discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Morishita describes calculating target deceleration from a stored target deceleration characteristic map and using the calculated target deceleration as a brake target force for controlling the braking system (Morishita, Paragraphs 0040-0045 and 0078).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the system of Ralea to include controlling the position of the piston through the electronic actuator based on the deceleration map, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Morishita.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because determining a requested vehicle braking amount based on stored data and brake pedal operation provides a braking response corresponding to the driver's braking demand and desire (Morishita, Paragraphs 0040-0045).
Regarding Claim 7, Ralea, as modified, describes the brake system of claim 4, further comprising: a position detection unit that transmits position information of the electronic actuator to the control unit (position sensor senses the position of the actuator ram and provides a position feedback signal to the controller, Ralea, Paragraph 0022 and Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 11, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 2 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 12, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 3 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 13, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claims 2 and 3 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claims.
Regarding Claim 14, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claims 3 and 4 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 15, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 3 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 16, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 4 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 17, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 18, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 19, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Claims 5, 9, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ralea U.S. P.G. Publication 2005/0269872 A1 (hereinafter, Ralea), in view of KR20140057893A (hereinafter, Han), in view of KR20000006630U (hereinafter, Yu), in view of Morishita U.S. P.G. Publication 2012/0139330 A1 (hereinafter, Morishita), and further in view of Shin et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2014/0156163 A1 (hereinafter, Shin).
Regarding Claim 5, Ralea, as modified, describes the brake system of claim 4.
Ralea does not specifically describe the system to include wherein the control unit calculates a current deceleration of the vehicle according to the controlled electronic actuator.
Shin discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Shin describes calculating a current deceleration of the vehicle based on a sensing value of a wheel speed sensor while controlling the braking system to achieve a target deceleration (Shin, Paragraphs 0013-0015).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the system of Ralea to include wherein the control unit calculates a current deceleration of the vehicle according to the controlled electronic actuator, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Shin.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because calculating the current deceleration during braking provides feedback regarding the actual braking response of the vehicle (Shin, Paragraphs 0013-0015).
Regarding Claim 9, Ralea, as modified, describes the brake system of claim 5, further comprising: an acceleration sensor for detecting a longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle and transmits the detected longitudinal acceleration to the control unit (deceleration sensor detects the current deceleration of the vehicle and transmits the detected deceleration to the central ECU, Han, Paragraph 0028).
Regarding Claim 20, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 9 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ralea U.S. P.G. Publication 2005/0269872 A1 (hereinafter, Ralea), in view of KR20140057893A (hereinafter, Han), in view of KR20000006630U (hereinafter, Yu), in view of Morishita U.S. P.G. Publication 2012/0139330 A1 (hereinafter, Morishita), and further in view of Shin et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2014/0156163 A1 (hereinafter, Shin), and further in view of KR20170118524A (hereinafter, Jae).
Regarding Claim 6, Ralea, as modified, describes the brake system of claim 5.
Ralea does not specifically describe the system to include compensating for braking force by readjusting the position of the piston through the electronic actuator.
KR '524 discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). KR '524 describes determining a position of a piston corresponding to a requested braking pressure and, when the detected braking pressure differs from the requested braking pressure, determining a corrected piston position and controlling the motor to move the piston to the corrected position (KR '524, Paragraphs 0034-0038 and 0048-0055).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the system of Ralea to include compensating for braking force by readjusting the position of the piston through the electronic actuator, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by KR '524.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because readjusting the piston position when the actual braking output differs from the requested braking output provides a known manner of compensating the braking force (KR '524, Paragraphs 0048-0055).
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 04/19/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights