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 is the first Office Action on the merits for application no. 18/538,433 filed on December 13th, 2023. Claims 1-8 are pending.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s claim to priority of application CN 2022 1160 9634.8 filed on December 14th, 2022. A certified copy was received on April 8th, 2024.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words in length. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Examiner Note
Examiner would welcome an interview to clarify any of the various objections and/or rejections seen below in order to expediate prosecution of the instant application.
Claim Objections
Regarding Claim 1 (lines 5-6), please change the recitation of “the electro-mechanical braking devices are controlled by the axle control unit to switch between a state in which friction braking is not applied and a state in which friction braking” to - - the electro-mechanical braking devices are controlled by the at least one axle control unit to switch between a state in which the friction braking is not applied and a state in which the friction braking - - to correct minor informalities regarding antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 1 (lines 13-14), please change the recitation of “controlling the electro-mechanical braking device to move the brake pad, such that the brake clearance is at a preset value” to - - controlling the electro-mechanical braking devices to move the brake pads, such that the brake clearances are [[is]] at a preset value - - to correct minor informalities regarding antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 2 (lines 2-3), please change the recitation of “maintaining the brake clearance at the preset value” to - - maintaining the brake clearances at the preset value - - to correct minor informalities regarding antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 2 (lines 4-6), please change the recitation of “controlling the electro-mechanical braking device to move the brake pad, such that the brake pad is pressed tightly against the brake disc and friction braking is produced” to - - controlling the electro-mechanical braking devices to move the brake pads, such that the brake pads are [[is]] pressed tightly against the brake discs and the friction braking is produced - - to correct minor informalities regarding antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 3 (lines 2-4), please change the recitation of “the electro-mechanical braking device is controlled to move the brake pad, such that the brake clearance is increased to the preset value” to - - the electro-mechanical braking devices are [[is]] controlled to move the brake pads, such that the brake clearances are [[is]] increased to the preset value - - to correct minor informalities regarding antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 4 (lines 2-3), please change the recitation of “controlling the electro-mechanical braking device to move the brake pad, such that the brake clearance is of the initial value” to - - controlling the electro-mechanical braking devices to move the brake pads, such that the brake clearances are [[is]] of the initial value - - to correct minor informalities regarding antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 5 (lines 1-2), please change the recitation of “determining whether regenerative braking is produced by a drive motor of the regenerative braking system” to - - determining whether the regenerative braking is produced by [[a]] the drive motor of the regenerative braking system - - to correct minor informalities regarding antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 6 (line 1), please change the recitation of “characterized in that the preset value C of the brake clearance meets” to - - characterized in that the preset value C of the brake clearances meets - - to correct minor informalities regarding antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 7, please change the recitation of “in case that the preset value C of the brake clearance is equal to 0, controlling the electro-mechanical braking device to make the brake pad in slight contact with the brake disc without producing friction braking” to - - in case that the preset value C of the brake clearances are [[is]] equal to 0, controlling the electro-mechanical braking devices to make the brake pads in slight contact with the brake discs without producing the friction braking - - to correct minor informalities regarding antecedent basis.
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 and 7-8 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, in the recitation of “in case that the maximum regenerative braking meets the braking requirement after the friction braking is performed, the electro-mechanical braking device is controlled to move the brake pad, such that the brake clearance is increased to the preset value” it is generally unclear what Applicant intends to recite. Based on the disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that in the case that the maximum regenerative braking meets the braking requirement after the friction braking is performed (i.e., friction braking is no longer necessary to meet the braking requirement), the electro-mechanical braking device is controlled to move the brake pad (presumably away from the brake disc), such that the brake clearance is increased to the preset value (emphasis added; generally unclear; claim 1 recites “wherein the preset value is smaller than the initial value”). One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the brake clearance would return to the initial value when friction braking is no longer necessary based on the conditions recited in claims 1 and 3. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 7, in the recitation of “characterized in that, in case that the preset value C of the brake clearance is equal to 0, controlling the electro-mechanical braking device to make the brake pad in slight contact with the brake disc without producing friction braking” it is generally unclear how a brake pad could make contact with a brake disc and produce no friction braking. The metes and bounds of “slight contact” and “without producing friction braking” are unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 8, in the recitation of “perform operations of the method of any one of claims 1 to 7” it is unclear what features recited in claims 1-7 Applicant intends to incorporate into claim 8. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “[[An]] The electro-mechanical braking system, comprising: the at least one axle control unit; [[a]] the plurality of electro-mechanical braking devices provided at the ends of the wheels and driven by the motors to apply the friction braking forces to the wheels, the electro-mechanical braking devices are controlled by the at least one axle control unit to switch between [[a]] the state in which the friction braking is not applied and [[a]] the state in which the friction braking is applied in response to [[a]] the braking requirement; a memory in communication connection with [[the]] at least one brake controller, wherein the memory stores thereon machine-executable instructions; and a processor in communication connection with the at least one axle control unit, and the memory, wherein the machine-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the electromechanical braking system to perform operations of the method of any one of claims 1 to 7” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination.
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 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.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Honda (US 2019/0232790).
Regarding Claim 1, Honda teaches a braking method for a vehicle (see Fig. 1) performed by an electro-mechanical braking system (“electric brake device” 34), the vehicle comprising the electro-mechanical braking system (34) and a regenerative braking system (“regenerative brake device” 32),
the electro-mechanical braking system (34) comprising at least one axle control unit (“EM-ECU” 232) and a plurality of electro-mechanical braking devices (“brake caliper” 120) provided at ends of wheels (“wheels” 10) and driven by motors (Figs. 2-3, “electric motor” 144) to apply friction braking to the wheels (10; [0039] – “As shown in FIG. 2, each electric brake device 34 includes: a brake caliper 120 (hereinafter simply referred to as “caliper 120” where appropriate) in which an electric brake actuator 110 (hereinafter simply referred to as “actuator 110” where appropriate) is disposed as a principal constituent element; and a disc rotor 122, as a rotary body, configured to rotate together with a wheel” emphasis added),
the electro-mechanical braking devices (120) are controlled by the axle control unit (232) to switch between a state in which friction braking is not applied and a state in which friction braking is applied in response to a braking requirement ([0055] – “Control of the brake system, namely, control of a braking force F, is executed by a control system shown in FIG. 1. (Hereinafter, respective braking forces are collectively referred to as “braking force F” where appropriate.) Specifically, the control system includes, as a main controller, a brake system electronic control unit (hereinafter abbreviated as “BS-ECU” where appropriate) 230 that is mainly constituted by a computer. Under control of the BS-ECU 230, each electric brake device 34 is controlled by an electronic control unit for the electric brake device (hereinafter abbreviated as “EM-ECU” where appropriate) 232 which is a constituent element of a corresponding one of the electric brake devices 34”),
wherein the method comprises:
setting a brake clearance (see Fig. 2, “clearance” CLb or CLc) between a brake pad (“brake pads” 124a or 124b) and a brake disc (“disc rotor” 122) of each of the electro-mechanical braking devices (120) to an initial value (Abstract – “first clearance”; see Fig. 2; [0065] – “In the electric brake device 34, the piston 142, namely, the output sleeve 154 as the linearly moving member, is positioned such that a certain size of a clearance CL is formed between the friction member 126 and the disc rotor 122 when no request for the electric braking force F.sub.EM is being made”);
determining whether there is the braking requirement (Fig. 5, “step 1” S1; [0073] – “In the control process according to the brake control program, Step 1 is implemented to identify the required overall braking force F.sub.SUM* based on the brake operation amount δ of the brake pedal 40 or the signal as to the required overall braking force F.sub.SUM* transmitted from the AO-ECU 234”);
determining whether regenerative braking is produced by a drive motor (“electric motor” 18) of the regenerative braking system (32; “Step 2” S2 and “Step 3” S3; [0073] – “At S2, the maximum regenerative braking force F.sub.RG-MAX, which is the regenerative braking force F.sub.RG that can be generated at that time, is obtained based on the signal sent from the HB-ECU 30. At S3, a subroutine for determining the target braking force indicated by a flowchart of FIG. 6 is executed to determine the target regenerative braking force F.sub.RG* and the target electric braking force F.sub.EM”); and
in response to producing of the regenerative braking, controlling the electro-mechanical braking device (120) to move the brake pad (124a or 124b), such that the brake clearance (CLb or CLc) is at a preset value (“second clearance”), wherein the preset value (“second clearance”) is smaller than the initial value (“first clearance”; Abstract – “A vehicle brake system including a regenerative brake device and an electric brake device, wherein, in a condition in which no request for an electric braking force is made, the brake system is configured to: (a) in principle, cause a piston of an actuator of the electric brake device to be located at a retracted position at which a clearance between a friction member and a rotary body of the electric brake device is allowed to be equal to a first clearance; and (b) execute a regenerative-braking-force-dependent standby control in which the piston is moved from the retracted position to a standby position at which the clearance does not exceed a second clearance set to be smaller than the first clearance, when a difference between a maximum regenerative braking force that can be generated and an actual regenerative braking force becomes smaller than or equal to a set difference” emphasis added).
Regarding Claim 2, Honda teaches the method of claim 1, characterized by further comprising:
in case that a maximum regenerative braking meets the braking requirement, maintaining the brake clearance at the preset value (see Abstract); and
in case that the maximum regenerative braking does not meet the braking requirement, controlling the electro-mechanical braking device (120) to move the brake pad (124a or 124b), such that the brake pad (124a or 124b) is pressed tightly against the brake disc (122) and friction braking is produced until a sum of the regenerative braking and the friction braking meets the braking requirement ([0024] – “The regenerative brake device may fail to generate the regenerative braking force depending upon a state of charge (SOC) of a battery for accumulating a generated electric quantity, for instance. In such a situation, the maximum regenerative braking force is 0, and it is not preferable to change the piston position according to the condition described above based on the maximum regenerative braking force. In this form, the piston position is changed based on the state of the brake operation and the state of the accelerating operation. This form achieves good response of the electric braking force even in the situation in which the regenerative braking force cannot be generated”).
Regarding Claim 4, Honda teaches the method of claim 1, characterized by further comprising:
in response to determining that there is no braking requirement, controlling the electro-mechanical braking device (120) to move the brake pad (124a or 124b), such that the brake clearance (CLc or CLb) is of the initial value (“first clearance”; Abstract – “A vehicle brake system including a regenerative brake device and an electric brake device, wherein, in a condition in which no request for an electric braking force is made, the brake system is configured to: (a) in principle, cause a piston of an actuator of the electric brake device to be located at a retracted position at which a clearance between a friction member and a rotary body of the electric brake device is allowed to be equal to a first clearance”).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda (US 2019/0232790), in view of Nishikawa (US 10,899,327).
Regarding Claim 3, Honda teaches the method of claim 2.
Honda does not teach “in case that the maximum regenerative braking meets the braking requirement after the friction braking is performed, the electro-mechanical braking device is controlled to move the brake pad, such that the brake clearance is increased to the preset value” (see 112(b) rejection above). In other words, Honda does not explicitly teach ending the application of the electric friction braking when it is no longer needed.
Nishikawa teaches “While the driver is not operating the brake operation member 27, the clearance adjustment section 30 adjusts the actual clearance so as to coincide with the target clearance with reference to the operation record flag. In this case, the clearance is not reduced zero from a value other than zero (e.g., stand-by position of the friction member 9) unless the brake operation member 27 has been operated just previously or immediately before the stop. Since useless adjustment of the clearance is avoided, unnecessary dragging torque can be reduced, thereby preventing decreasing electric mileage” (col. 4, line 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to return the electro-mechanical braking device to the preset value taught by Honda as suggested by Nishikawa, such that “in case that the maximum regenerative braking meets the braking requirement after the friction braking is performed, the electro-mechanical braking device is controlled to move the brake pad, such that the brake clearance is increased to the preset value”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in combining known elements, and have the obvious advantage of preventing dragging torque with the friction brakes taught by Honda.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda (US 2019/0232790), in view of Kim (US 2014/0042800).
Regarding Claim 5, Honda teaches the method of claim 1.
Honda does not teach “characterized in that, determining whether regenerative braking is produced by a drive motor of the regenerative braking system comprises: measuring whether torque direction of a drive motor shaft of the drive motor of the regenerative braking system changes from a negative direction to a positive direction; or measuring a regenerative current or electromotive force when a drive power supply is turned off”.
Kim teaches determining whether regenerative braking is produced by a drive motor of the regenerative braking system ([0005] – “a transportation device using an electric motor as a power source includes a regenerative brake system”) comprises:
measuring a regenerative current or electromotive force when a drive power supply is turned off ([0084] – “According to the first exemplary embodiment, the determining of whether the regenerative braking works is achieved by the charge amount measuring device 123 determining a charge level of the battery unit 122, but the inventive concept is not limited thereto. That is, according to the inventive concept, the determination on whether the regenerative braking works may be achieved in various methods. For example, to determine whether the regenerative braking works, a method of measuring a change in a voltage/current flowing through an electric circuit related to the regenerative braking in the brake system 100” emphasis added).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to verify operation of the regenerative braking system taught by Honda as suggested by Kim, such that “characterized in that, determining whether regenerative braking is produced by a drive motor of the regenerative braking system comprises: measuring whether torque direction of a drive motor shaft of the drive motor of the regenerative braking system changes from a negative direction to a positive direction; or measuring a regenerative current or electromotive force when a drive power supply is turned off”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, and have the obvious advantage of verifying operation of the regenerative braking system taught by Honda.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda (US 2019/0232790), in view of Oikawa (US 6,250,436).
Regarding Claim 6, Honda teaches the method of claim 1.
Honda does not teach “characterized in that the preset value C of the brake clearance meets 0<C≤0.1 mm”.
Oikawa teaches a preset value of a brake clearance (Fig. 1; clearance between “brake pad” 15 or 14 and “disk” 13) meets 0<C≤0.1 mm (see various clearances in Figs. 1 and 4; col. 6, line 60 – “In this case, because the clearance is zero, it is possible to prevent dust or water from entering the area between the disk 13 and the inner pad 14 (outer pad 15). This is particularly useful in cold districts because it is possible to prevent freezing of water that would otherwise enter the space between the disk 13 and the inner pad 14 (outer pad 15). In this case, therefore, the initial braking force at the time of initiation of a brake operation can be improved. In addition, it is possible to improve the initial response characteristics at the time when the inner pad 14 (outer pad 15) begins to contact the disk 13”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the brake pads and brake disc taught by Honda with the brake clearance taught by Oikawa, such that “characterized in that the preset value C of the brake clearance meets 0<C≤0.1 mm”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, and have the obvious advantage of preventing dust and water from building up between the brake pads and brake disc taught by Honda.
Regarding Claim 7, Honda teaches the method of claim 1.
Honda does not teach “characterized in that, in case that the preset value C of the brake clearance is equal to 0, controlling the electro-mechanical braking device to make the brake pad in slight contact with the brake disc without producing friction braking” (see 112(b) rejection above).
Oikawa teaches a preset value C of a brake clearance (Fig. 1; clearance between 15 or 14 and 13) is equal to 0 (see Fig. 4; see col. 6, line 60 passage above), controlling an electro-mechanical braking device (Fig. 1, “caliper” 17) to make a brake pad (15 or 14) in slight contact with a brake disc (13) without producing friction braking (see col. 6, line 60 passage above; see 112(b) rejection above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the brake pads and brake disc taught by Honda with the brake clearance taught by Oikawa, such that “characterized in that, in case that the preset value C of the brake clearance is equal to 0, controlling the electro-mechanical braking device to make the brake pad in slight contact with the brake disc without producing friction braking”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, and have the obvious advantage of preventing dust and water from building up between the brake pads and brake disc taught by Honda.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda (US 2019/0232790), in view of Williams (US 9,403,521) as evidenced by Oikawa (US 6,250,436).
Regarding Claim 6, Honda teaches the method of claim 1.
Honda does not teach “characterized in that the preset value C of the brake clearance meets 0<C≤0.1 mm”.
Williams teaches a preset value of a brake clearance (Fig. 1, “gap” G1 or G2) meets 0<C≤0.1 mm (col. 5, line 15 – “In order to apply the brakes the actuator 32 is operated such that the actuator rod extends from the actuator and moves in a direction of arrow A thereby rotating the operating shaft 26 anti-clockwise about axis D. Because the roller 28 is offset from axis D, the roller 28 moves in the direction of arrow A which causes the adjustment mechanism 24 to move in a direction of A which forces the brake pad 22 in the direction of arrow A, thereby closing the gap G2. Continued anti-clockwise rotation of the operating shaft 26 then causes the caliper 14 to move in the direction of arrow B as the hole 17 in the caliper slides on pin 16. This causes gap G1 to close. At this point the instantaneous running clearance is zero but, because the brake pads are not being forced against the brake disc 18, no braking force exists to retard to slow the vehicle. Only when the actuator 32 continues to move the actuator rod 34 in the direction of arrow A, does a clamping force of the brake pads on the discs start to be generated” emphasis added).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the brake pads and brake disc taught by Honda with the brake clearance taught by Williams, such that “characterized in that the preset value C of the brake clearance meets 0<C≤0.1 mm”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, and have the obvious advantage of preventing dust and water from building up between the brake pads and brake disc taught by Honda as evidenced by Oikawa.
Regarding Claim 7, Honda teaches the method of claim 1.
Honda does not teach “characterized in that, in case that the preset value C of the brake clearance is equal to 0, controlling the electro-mechanical braking device to make the brake pad in slight contact with the brake disc without producing friction braking” (see 112(b) rejection above).
Williams teaches a preset value C of a brake clearance (Fig. 1, G1 or G2) is equal to 0 (see col. 5, line 15 passage above),
controlling an electro-mechanical braking device (“brake” 12) to make a brake pad (“brake pads” 20 or 22) in slight contact with a brake disc (“brake disc” 18) without producing friction braking (see col. 5, line 15 passage above; see 112(b) rejection above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the brake pads and brake disc taught by Honda with the brake clearance taught by Williams, such that “characterized in that, in case that the preset value C of the brake clearance is equal to 0, controlling the electro-mechanical braking device to make the brake pad in slight contact with the brake disc without producing friction braking”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, and have the obvious advantage of preventing dust and water from building up between the brake pads and brake disc taught by Honda as evidenced by Oikawa.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda (US 2019/0232790), in view of Yu (US 2025/0128607).
Regarding Claim 8, Honda teaches an electro-mechanical braking system (Fig. 1, 34), comprising:
at least one axle control unit (232);
a plurality of electro-mechanical braking devices (120) provided at ends of wheels (10) and driven by motors (Figs. 2-3, 144) to apply friction braking forces to the wheels (10),
the electro-mechanical braking devices (120) are controlled by the axle control unit (232) to switch between a state in which friction braking is not applied and a state in which the friction braking is applied in response to a braking requirement (see relevant passages above; see 112(b) rejection above).
Honda does not teach “a memory in communication connection with the at least one brake controller, wherein the memory stores thereon machine-executable instructions; and a processor in communication connection with the at least one axle control unit, and the memory, wherein the machine-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the electro-mechanical braking system to perform operations of the method of any one of claims 1 to 7”.
Yu teaches a memory (not shown) in communication connection with at least one brake controller (“electric brake ECU” 31),
wherein the memory (not shown) stores thereon machine-executable instructions ([0030] – “As illustrated in FIG. 1, the electric brake ECU 31 is provided in correspondence with each of the braking mechanisms 21. The electric brake ECU 31 includes, for example, a microcomputer including an arithmetic processing unit (a CPU), a storage device (a memory), a control board, and the like, and a drive circuit for supplying electric power to the electric motor 26 (for example, an inverter). As illustrated in FIG. 3, the electric brake ECU 31 includes the ECU board 31B with an arithmetic circuit and the like mounted thereon. The electric brake ECU 31 controls the electric motor 26, which actuates the braking mechanism 21, based on the instruction from the first ECU 10 or the second ECU 11”); and
a processor ([0019] – “The first ECU 10 and the second ECU 11 each include a microcomputer equipped with an arithmetic processing unit (a CPU), a storage device (a memory), a control board, and the like”) in communication connection with at least one axle control unit (“Second ECU (BRAKE)” 11 or “First ECU (BRAKE)” 10), and the memory (not shown),
wherein the machine-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, cause an electro-mechanical braking system (“electric brake apparatuses” 5 and 6) to perform operations of a method (see Figs. 4-5; see relevant passages above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the electro-mechanical braking system taught by Honda with the memory and processor taught by Yu, such that “a memory in communication connection with the at least one brake controller, wherein the memory stores thereon machine-executable instructions; and a processor in communication connection with the at least one axle control unit, and the memory, wherein the machine-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the electro-mechanical braking system to perform operations of the method of any one of claims 1 to 7”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in combining known elements, and have the obvious advantage of reliably and repeatably carrying out the method taught Honda.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. The prior art of Ohkubo (US 10,654,454) and Masuda (US 9,915,308) listed in the attached "Notice of References Cited" disclose similar electro-mechanical braking systems and regenerative braking systems related to various aspects of the claimed invention.
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