CTFR 18/546,652 CTFR 91219 DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections Claim 15 reacts “the backup control device”, previously recited was “a single backup control device”. Please amend claim 15 for consistency with the remaining claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 9-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Nilsson (U.S. 2008/0296106) . Regarding claims 9 and 13 , Nilsson discloses (figs. 1-2A) An electromechanical brake system (10) for a motor vehicle (abstract at least), and a method for operating the system, the system comprising: four wheel brake devices ( 24 1 - 24 4 ) ; four primary electric motors (first motor 30); four secondary electric motors (second motor 30’); four control devices (40); and a single backup control device (18’), wherein the control devices and/or the single backup control device are configured to acquire and/or evaluate sensor data from sensors (e.g. 44, 44’) assigned to the wheel brake devices and/or the motor vehicle (see pgh. 0054), wherein each respective wheel brake device of the wheel brake devices is respectively assigned one of the primary electric motors and one of the secondary electric motors for operating the respective wheel brake device (fig. 2A as shown), and wherein, for actuating the primary and secondary electric motors, each of the control devices is respectively assigned to one of the primary electric motors of one of the wheel brake devices (fig. 2A as shown, 40 assigned to 30) and the single backup control device is directly assigned to all of the four secondary electric motors of the wheel brake devices (figs 1 and 2A as shown, 18’ is directly assigned to each instance of 30’. See also response to arguments below); the method comprising the following steps: monitoring for functionality the primary and secondary electric motors (pgh. 0055 at least), the control devices (pgh. 0055 at least), and the single backup control device (pgh. 0043 at least) of the brake system; and based on a failure of one of the primary and secondary electric motors, of one of the control devices, or of the single backup control device, triggering a replacement response (fail-safe operations, e.g. pgh. 0017, providing brake actuator control during failure of another portion of the actuator, and pgh. 0056 at least). Regarding claim 10 , Nilsson discloses (figs. 1-2A) the sensors are rotor position sensors (e.g. “position sensors”), and/or rotational speed sensors (e.g. “wheel speed sensors”), and/or air bag sensors, and/or distance sensors. Regarding claim 12 , Nilsson discloses (figs. 1-2A) each of the control devices is arranged directly on the wheel brake device to whose primary electric motor the control device are assigned (fig. 2A as shown, 40 arranged on 24). Regarding claim 14 , Nilsson discloses (figs. 1-2A) based on a failure of one of the primary electric motors, the secondary electric motor assigned to the same wheel brake device is actuated as the replacement response (pgh. 0024, first and second actuation mechanisms are operable independently of one another in case of failure of one of them. Pgh. 0048, “actuation mechanism” is the motor 30 and 30’. See also pgh. 0059). Regarding claim 15 , Nilsson discloses (figs. 1-2A) based on a failure of one of the control devices, the backup control device is actuated as the replacement response (pgh. 0053-0055 at least, fail silent operation, if one controller 40 or 40’ fails, the other can operate) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nilsson (U.S. 2008/0296106) in view of Weiberle (DE 102009046238 A1) . Regarding claim 11 , Nilsson does not appear to disclose the type of electric motors presently claimed. In the same field of endeavor of redundant brake systems, Weiberle teaches (figs. 1-2) electric motors for each wheel (25,26,29,30), where the motors are electronically commutated electric motors (see page 10 pgh. 3 of the provided copy and translation). In order to arrive at the claimed invention, the motors of Nilsson would be provided as electronically commutated as suggested by Weiberle. 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 electronically commutated motors to actuate the brakes to provide a motor design that has high reliability and efficiency, thereby minimizing failures and power consumption. Note that providing a reliable motor design does not negate the need for redundancy, as failure could still occur since no system is 100% reliable. Regarding claim 16 , Nilsson does not appear to disclose outputting a warning. In the same field of endeavor of redundant brake systems, Weiberle teaches as the replacement response, a warning is output on a display device (24) assigned to a driver of the motor vehicle (see page 12 first paragraph, “displays warning messages” that are “depending on the operating condition of the brake system”). 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 a warning to a driver to alert the driver that there is a problem in the brake control system, so that the problem can be investigated/repaired. Response to Arguments Applicant argues that Nilsson fails to disclose all of the limitations of claims 9 and 13 as amended, namely that the single backup control device is “directly assigned to all of the four secondary electric motors”, and contends that instead the backup control device 18’ is instead “directly assigned” to another controller 40’. (see page 6 of the remarks filed on 5/12/2026). It is noted that the phrase “directly assigned” is absent from the original specification and claims, so it appears that the only support for this concept lies within the figure. The specification otherwise uses the term “directly” a few times, one of which being the following: “The control devices 5 are each arranged directly on the wheel brake device 2 to whose primary electric motor 3 they are assigned.” (pgh. 0019 of PGPub). However, the figure shows that control device 5 is not literally and physically “arranged directly on the wheel brake”, because primary motor 3 is interposed between the control device 5 and wheel brake 2. As best understood, “directly” as used within the present application does not preclude the presence of additional components. Further, recitation of “directly assigned” is not equivalent to “directly placed/positioned”, for example, and appears to carry an associative meaning rather than a physical positioning meaning. Nevertheless, turning to Nilsson, backup control device 18’ is assigned to each of the four secondary electric motors 30’ as shown, and further the backup control device can directly control the secondary electric motors to drive the wheel brakes upon failure of the local controller 40’ (see pgh. 0056: “Thus, at least one of first and second central control units 18,18' will, for any single failure in brake system 10, be able to communicate the best possible demand for each brake unit 24 and also reach every brake unit 24 with this demand.”). Accordingly, Nilsson does disclose the backup control device 18’ being “directly assigned” to each of the four motors 30’, since it is able to communicate the demand to the brake unit despite a malfunctioning local controller 40’. It is also noted that controller 18’ is one controller, therefore it is a “single backup control device” as claimed. Regarding claim 13, Applicant contends that Nilsson does not disclose “triggering a replacement response” based on failure of a motor or control device. (see page 6 of the remarks). Pgh. 0055 states that the device prevents a failure in the local control unit 40,40’ from performing braking function, and pgh. 0056 states that for a single failure in the brake system 10, the control unit 18, 18’ communicates the best possible demand for the brake unit 24 and reaches every brake unit 24. Accordingly, under the condition when the local control unit 40’ fails, a replacement response is “triggered” such that the single backup control device 18’ instead controls the brake unit. Regarding claim 14, Applicant contends that Nilsson does not actuating a secondary motor as a replacement response based on a failure of a primary motor. Pgh. 0059 states, “Each local control unit 40, 40' and its associated actuation mechanism is able to control brake component 26 (i.e., cause to be both applied and released) with at least degraded performance, even with a total loss of functionality of the other local control unit 40, 40' and/or its associated actuation mechanism.” Accordingly, this contemplates using the other (i.e. secondary) motor upon failure (i.e. replacement response) of the primary motor. Conclusion 07-39 AIA 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 inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID MORRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3595. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM. 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. /DAVID R MORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 Application/Control Number: 18/546,652 Page 2 Art Unit: 3616 Application/Control Number: 18/546,652 Page 3 Art Unit: 3616 Application/Control Number: 18/546,652 Page 4 Art Unit: 3616 Application/Control Number: 18/546,652 Page 5 Art Unit: 3616 Application/Control Number: 18/546,652 Page 6 Art Unit: 3616 Application/Control Number: 18/546,652 Page 7 Art Unit: 3616 Application/Control Number: 18/546,652 Page 8 Art Unit: 3616
Prosecution Insights