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 .
Status of Claims
The amendment of 02/10/2026 has been entered. Claims 15-24 and 26-28 are currently pending in the application.
EXAMINER’S AMENDMENT
Two voicemails were left for Stephen Evans to request authorization to cancel rejected claims 17-18 and 22-24 to expedite allowance of the remaining claims. Although one call was received from Applicant’s representative it did not result in authorization for the examiner’s amendment by the deadline required by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) - Enablement
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 17-18 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 17 and 18 recite both the limitations “wherein the caliper sensor is a binary sensor” at claim 15 lines 16-17 and “wherein the caliper sensor has a reading range from zero to at least the clamping force threshold value” at claim 17 lines 1-2. The combination of the limitations in the same claim is not enabled by Applicant’s disclosure because:
the nature of the invention is one where a sensor cannot be both a binary sensor and a reading range from zero to a higher number, as the two features are mutually exclusive;
the state of the prior art is one where binary sensors and a sensor having a reading range from zero to a higher number are known but not a sensor that provides both features as the features are mutually exclusive;
the level of one of ordinary skill is such that one of ordinary skill would recognize a binary sensors and a sensor having a reading range from zero to a higher number are mutually exclusive; and
there are no known working examples of a sensor that is both a binary sensor and provides a reading range from zero to a higher number.
Claims 22-24 are rejected for depending upon rejected base claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) - Written Description
Claims 17-18 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 17 and 18 recite both the limitations “wherein the caliper sensor is a binary sensor” at claim 15 lines 16-17 and “wherein the caliper sensor has a reading range from zero to at least the clamping force threshold value” at claims 17 and 18 lines 1-2. A sensor exhibiting both of these features is not disclosed in Applicant’s original disclosure. Therefore, the combination of the limitations is considered new matter.
Claims 22-24 are rejected for depending upon rejected base claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 17-18 and 22-24 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 17 and 18 recite both the limitations “wherein the caliper sensor is a binary sensor” at claim 15 lines 16-17 and “wherein the caliper sensor has a reading range from zero to at least the clamping force threshold value” at claims 17 and 18 lines 1-2. The combination of the limitations in the claim is indefinite because it is unclear how a sensor can provide a reading range from zero to a higher number and be a binary sensor as the features are mutually exclusive.
Claims 22-24 are rejected for depending upon indefinite base claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-16, 19-21, and 26-28 are allowed.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
MASUDA (US 10,479,342) is the closest prior art of record.
MASUDA discloses a control method for a braking system of a vehicle, wherein the braking system comprises at least one brake caliper (5), a caliper actuator (6) actuatable to cause clamping and releasing of the brake caliper (col. 2 lines 36-39), and a caliper sensor (19) suitable for detecting a magnitude correlated to the clamping of the brake caliper (col. 2 lines 47-51), the method comprising steps of:
predetermining a clamping force threshold value (Fig. 2, col. 7 lines 30-35, col. 13 lines 17-23) detectable by the caliper sensor (Fig. 2, col. 9 lines 1-3), said clamping force threshold value being lower than a maximum clamping force value exercisable by the brake caliper (implied);
receiving a reference force value (col. 5 line 55);
identifying, by a caliper stiffness modeling module (20), a caliper stiffness model defined by a theoretical stiffness curve which relates a clamping force applied by the brake caliper with a position of the caliper actuator (i.a. col. 4 lines 3-8);
estimating, by a force estimator module (16, including 18), a clamping force value using the caliper stiffness model and information correlated to the position of the caliper actuator (col. 3 lines 23-27); and
generating, by a brake control module (13), an actuator control signal based on the estimated clamping force value and the reference force value (col. 5 lines 61-65; col. 6 lines 1-3).
The prior art fails to teach or render obvious the claim limitation “wherein the caliper sensor is a binary sensor suitable for providing clamping force presence information when the clamping force reaches the threshold value” in the manner defined in claim 15.
Any comments considered necessary by Applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance".
Response to Arguments
The following remarks respond to Applicant’s arguments filed 02/10/2026.
Applicant’s remarks fail to address the new issue introduced by the amendment where the caliper sensor is claimed to be both a binary sensor (claim 15 lines 16-17) and to have a reading range from zero to at least the clamping force threshold value (claims 17 and 18 lines 1-2) which are mutually exclusive features.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MARK L. GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-7555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
/MARK L. GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights