Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/607,473

MOTOR CONTROL APPARATUS OF BRAKE SYSTEM AND CONTROL METHOD THEREOF

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Mar 17, 2024
Examiner
AGARED, GABRIEL T
Art Unit
2846
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
HL Mando Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
474 granted / 571 resolved
+15.0% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
15 currently pending
Career history
586
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.8%
-37.2% vs TC avg
§103
45.7%
+5.7% vs TC avg
§102
36.7%
-3.3% vs TC avg
§112
10.7%
-29.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 571 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . This action is in response to an application filed on 03/17/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination. Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. LIMITATIONS IN PREAMBLE The recitation that “…a brake system for controlling a motor providing a braking force…” and “…a brake system…” has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951). Claim Objections Claim 11 recites the limitation "…a main controller…" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 1-6, 8-11, 13, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. (US 2013/0033210 A1 and Suzuki hereinafter). As to Claims 1, Suzuki in its teachings as shown in Fig.1-5B disclose as best illustrated by Fig. 4 a motor control apparatus (10) of a brake system for controlling a motor (80) providing a braking force, the motor control apparatus (10) comprising: a motor coil unit (801, 802) disposed in the motor; an inverter (601, 602) configured to supply current to the motor coil unit; a current detector (701, 702) configured to detect motor current supplied to the motor coil unit; and a controller (20) configured to adjust current supplied to the motor by estimating a temperature (751, 752) of the motor coil unit by receiving information detected by the current detector (see [0028], [0031] and [0037]). As to Claims 2, Suzuki disclose the motor control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller comprises: a first controller (301) configured to control motor current transferred to a part of the motor coil unit (801); and a second controller (302) configured to control motor current transferred to the rest (802) of the motor coil unit (see also [0028]). As to Claims 3, Suzuki disclose the motor control apparatus of claim 2, wherein the motor coil unit comprises: a first motor coil (801) controlled by the first controller (301); and a second motor coil (802) controlled by the second controller (302). As to Claims 4, Suzuki disclose the motor control apparatus of claim 3, wherein the inverter comprises: a first inverter (601) controlled by the first controller (301) and configured to supply current to the first motor coil (801); and a second inverter (602) controlled by the second controller (302) and configured to supply current to the second motor coil (802). As to Claims 5, Suzuki disclose the motor control apparatus of claim 4, wherein the controller is configured to, by comparing a temperature (Tm1) of the first motor coil (801) estimated by the first controller and a temperature (Tm2) of the second motor coil (802) estimated by the second controller, adjust the current supplied to the motor based on the relatively high temperature (see also [0039]). As to Claims 6, Suzuki disclose the motor control apparatus of claim 3, wherein the controller is configured to estimate temperatures of the first motor coil (751) and the second motor coil (752) by calculating line-to-line current of the first motor coil and the second motor coil from the motor current detected by the current detector (see [0037]). As to Claims 8, Suzuki disclose the motor control apparatus of claim 4, wherein the first controller and the second controller exchange information through communication with each other (see [0041]). As to Claims 9, Suzuki disclose the motor control apparatus of claim 8, wherein any one of the first controller and the second controller is operated as a main controller to calculate a current command value of the motor according to a required pressure (The main controller 20 sets a current limitation value for the current command value based on estimated temperatures Tm1 and Tm2 of the temperature estimation sections 751 and 752 and when the current command values Id* and Iq* exceed the current limitation value, such values are corrected to current command values Id** and Iq**, and corrected current command values Id** and Iq** are supplied to the first controller 301 and the second controller 302, respectively, to generate the required torque or pressure – see also drive the motor 80 according to a required pressure or torque and prevent overheating – see also [0029], [0031], [0039] and [0041]). As to Claims 10, Suzuki disclose the motor control apparatus of claim 9, wherein the first controller and the second controller are configured to control the first inverter and the second inverter so that the current is provided to the first motor coil and the second motor coil by distributing the calculated current command values of the motor, respectively (see [0029], [0031], [0039] and [0041]). As to Claims 11, Suzuki disclose the motor control apparatus of claim 8, wherein, when an abnormality occurs in any one of the first controller and the second controller, the controller in which no abnormality occurs is operated as a main controller to calculate a current command value of the motor and control the first inverter or the second inverter so that the current is supplied to the motor coil controlled by the main controller with the calculated current command value of the motor (Based on the estimated temperature Tm1, Tm2 the main controller 20 determines/sets the current command value to avoid abnormality in the current to be supplied to motor 80 via the first 301 and the second controller 302- see also [0029], [0031], [0039] and [0041]). As to Claims 13, Suzuki in its teachings as shown in Fig.1-5B disclose as best illustrated by Fig. 4 a control method of a motor control apparatus (10) of a brake system, the control method comprising: determining a main controller (20) such that any one of a first controller (301) configured to control a first motor coil (801) of a motor (80) and a second controller (302) configured to control a second motor coil (802) of the motor becomes the main controller (see [0031]); estimating a temperature (751,752) of the first motor coil or the second motor coil by calculating line-to-line current of the first motor coil or the second motor coil (see [0037]); and adjusting current provided to the motor based on the temperature of the first motor coil or the second motor coil (The current command value limitation section 20 sets a current limitation value for the current command value based on estimated temperatures Tm1 and Tm2 of the temperature estimation sections 751 and 752- see [0031]). As to Claims 18, Suzuki disclose the control method of claim 13, wherein the determining of the main controller comprises: determining whether an abnormality occurs in any one of the first controller and the second controller; and when an abnormality occurs in any one of the first controller and the second controller, determining a controller in which no abnormality occurs as the main controller (Based on the estimated temperature Tm1, Tm2 the main controller 20 determines/sets the current command value to avoid abnormality in the current to be supplied to motor 80 via the first 301 and the second controller 302- see also [0029], [0031], [0039] and [0041]). As to Claims 20, Suzuki disclose the control method of claim 13, wherein the estimating (751, 752) of the temperature of the first motor coil (801) or the second motor coil (802) comprises calculating line-to-line current of the first motor coil and the second motor coil based on a three-phase motor current transferred to the motor (see [0037]). 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. 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 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Tokuda et al. (US 2020/0204101 A1 and Tokuda hereinafter). As to Claims 7 and 12, Suzuki disclose the motor control apparatus of claim 6 and 3, however, it doesn’t explicitly disclose: wherein the first motor coil and the second motor coil are in delta connection and wherein the first motor coil and the second motor coil are in Y connection Nonetheless, Tokuda in its teachings as shown in Fig.1-12 as best illustrated in Fig.1 disclose a three-phase motor 70 is configured such that the connection state of the windings of the stator can be switched between a star connection and a delta connection by switching the connection state between the stator windings 71, 72, and 73 (see [0028]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for the first and second coils of motor to be in a delta or Y connection as thought by Tokuda within the teachings of Suzuki in order to reduce inrush current and torque in Y connection and for full-speed operation achieve higher torque in delta connection. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 14-17 and 19 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. In view of the limitations the closest prior art including the prior works of the assignee/inventor does not explicitly describe or reasonably suggest or render obvious in combination with all the given limitations the control method, wherein the estimating of the temperature of the first motor coil or the second motor coil comprises: calculating, by the main controller, a motor torque value according to a required pressure; calculating, by the main controller, a current command value provided to the motor so that the calculated motor torque is output; and sharing, by the main controller, the calculated current command value with a sub-controller. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (US 2022/0399849 A1: The present disclosure relates to an electronic parking brake system including a motor actuator operated by an electric motor, wherein the electronic parking brake system further includes a motor driving circuit provided to drive the electric motor, and a controller configured to determine a temperature of the electric motor from a temperature of a brake disc during a parking operation, determine a target current based on the determined motor temperature, and control the electric motor depending on the determined target current- see [Abstract]). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL T AGARED whose telephone number is (571)270-1981. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 (Mon- Thur). 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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at 5712722060. 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. /GABRIEL AGARED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 17, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599231
CONTROL METHOD FOR SMART FURNITURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594838
METHOD OF MODULATION OF TORQUE BY VEHICLE PROPULSION MOTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583327
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR POWER CONVERSION IN AN ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587116
MOTOR STARTING CIRCUIT HAVING DEAD TIME SETTING MECHANISM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587123
CONTROL DEVICE AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING A POWER CONVERTER, AND ELECTRICAL DRIVE SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+19.0%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 571 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month