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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B in the reply filed on May 28, 2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “104” has been used to designate both a brake controller and a brake system (designated as a box with broken lines, and indicated in the specification as 102). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation “the brake pad record” is repeated in succession, see lines 1-2. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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, 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0126966 A1 to Crum.
Re-claim 1, Crum teaches an apparatus comprising: machine readable instructions (such as program language); and processor circuitry (i.e. controller 504) to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine readable instructions to: activate a brake motor (as part of brake actuator 516) of a brake of a vehicle to cause contact between a brake pad of the brake and a rotor (such as rotating plates 408) of the brake. However, Crum fails to clearly state comparing a power output of the brake motor of the brake to a threshold; and determine a material degradation level of the brake pad based on the comparison of the power output to the threshold, but rather teaches a sensed current level associated with a brake force for determining material degradation. Crum further teaches the proportionality of power to current and voltage (see paragraphs 81-82). The teachings of Crum provide a roadmap to those skilled in the art who would have recognized the material degradation of the brake pads could have been determined by comparing motor current values, and by extension motor power values, to threshold values when having to determine brake pad degradation (or wear) amounts. As such 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 the teachings of Crum, with respect to motor current values and their proportional relationship to motor power values, would have provided alternative methods for determining the brake pad degradation.
Re-claims 4 and 5, Crum further teaches the material degradation is determined when and actuator travel exceeds a threshold value (see paragraph 94). The travel distance, and by extension travel time, defines the latency between activation of the brake motor and contact between the brake pad and rotor (or discs).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crum as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2020/0334922 A1 to Johnston et al.
Re-claims 2 and 3, Crum fails to teach determining material degradation based on either a noise level, or a noise occurrence associated with the contact between the brake pad and the rotor.
Johnston et al. teach a system of determining wear associated with various components of a vehicle, such as a brake pad, and the brake pad wear based upon a noise level (see paragraph 26 line 10), or noise occurrence (i.e. pattern, see paragraph 26 line 10). Neither method requires physical contact with the brake pad and merely requires a listening or recording device, thus reducing costs associated with the wear determination unit. As such 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 and vehicle of Crum with a noise level or noise occurrence material degradation detection system of the type taught by Johnston et al., thus providing an additional non-physical method by which one could determine excessive material degradation of the brake pad.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-12 and 14-20 are allowed.
Claims 6 and 7 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.
Claim 13 would be allowed upon correcting the claim objection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kubota, Putz Saarelainen and Se each teach a brake pad wear determined using motor current values. Suzuki and Kamiya each teach a latency used to determine brake pad wear.
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 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights