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 .
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Henry (US 20070085414 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Henry discloses an electric brake device comprising: an electric motor (14); a linear motion section that moves due to the rotation of the electric motor (12); a brake pad that presses a disc rotor that rotates together with a wheel through the use of a thrust generated by the movement of the linear motion section (see [0020]); and a motor control device that controls the rotation of the electric motor (see [0024]), wherein the motor control device includes an efficiency estimation section (see Fig. 1) that estimates the relationship between a current supplied to the electric motor (16) and the thrust (34) in accordance with the relationship between an increase in the current value (16) of the electric motor with respect to an increase in the position (24) of the linear motion section and the current value (16) of the electric motor (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
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.
Claim 1, 4-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et. al. (US 20120193177 A1) in view of No (US 20210024044 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Goto discloses an electric brake device comprising: an electric motor (19); a linear motion section (27) that moves due to the rotation of the electric motor (19); a brake pad (9) that presses a disc rotor (3) that rotates together with a wheel (see [0026]) through the use of a thrust generated by the movement of the linear motion section (27); and a motor control device (7) that controls the rotation of the electric motor (19), wherein the motor control device (7) includes an efficiency estimation section (45) that estimates the relationship between a current supplied to the electric motor and the thrust (see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, [0034-0035], [0041-0042).
Goto appears to disclose the estimation of the relationship between a current supplied to the electric motor and the thrust in accordance with the relationship between an increase in the current value of the electric motor with respect to an increase in the position of the linear motion section and the current value of the electric motor (see Fig. 3, [0041-0042], [0060-0062], [0068]), but does not explicitly identify the relationship between position and current.
No teaches an electronic brake device wherein the relationship between a current supplied (402) to the electric motor and the thrust is estimated (410) in accordance with the relationship between an increase in the current value of the electric motor with respect to an increase in the position of the linear motion section (408) and the current value of the electric motor (402) (see Fig. 4, [0063-0068]).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to combine the teachings of No with the electric brake device of Goto in order to improve vehicle reliability, stability, and efficiency (see US 20210024044 A1 [No]; [0010-0012]).
Regarding Claim 4, Goto modified by No teaches wherein the motor control device (7) includes a current control section (41) that supplies a current to the electric motor (19) in accordance with the current-thrust relationship obtained by the efficiency estimation section (45) and with a brake thrust command from a higher-level control device (35) (see US 20120193177 A1 [Goto]; Fig 3).
Regarding Claim 5, Goto modified by No teaches wherein the motor control device (7) includes a brake pad thrust/current command conversion section (39) that outputs a current command value to the current control section (41) in accordance with the current-thrust relationship obtained by the efficiency estimation section (45) and with the brake thrust command from the higher-level control device (35) (see US 20120193177 A1 [Goto]; Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 6, Goto modified by No teaches wherein the motor control device (7) includes a current/position conversion processing section (39) and a rigidity table update section (46) (see [0077], [0081]), the current/position conversion processing section (39) tabulating the relationship between the current of the electric motor (19) during a brake operation and the position of the linear motion section (27) as a rigidity table, the rigidity table update section (46) updating data in the rigidity table in accordance with the current/position conversion processing section (39) and the efficiency estimation section (45) (see US 20120193177 A1 [Goto]; Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 7, Goto modified by No teaches wherein the efficiency estimation section estimates the wear amount of the brake pad from a motor current value and a no-load current value (see US 20120193177 A1 [Goto]; [0060-0066], Fig. 3, Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 9, Goto modified by No teaches wherein the motor control device (100) includes a thrust detection section (102b) and an abnormality detection section (104a), the thrust detection section (102b) detecting the thrust of the brake pad, the abnormality detection section (104) detecting abnormalities in the thrust detection section from the output value of the thrust detection section and the output value of the efficiency estimation section (see US 20210024044 A1 [No]; Fig. 1, [0015]).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry (US 20070085414 A1) as applied to Claim 1, above, in view of Konishi (US 20080048596 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Henry discloses the electric brake device according to Claim 1.
Henry does not explicitly disclose wherein, in a state where a vehicle is parked, the efficiency estimation section causes the electric motor to operate in the application direction, and thus estimates the relationship between the thrust and the current at the time of application.
Konishi teaches wherein, in a state where a vehicle is parked, the efficiency estimation section causes the electric motor to operate in the application direction, and thus estimates the relationship between the thrust and the current at the time of application (see [0043], Fig. 14, Claim 1, Claim 23).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, to combine the teachings of Konishi with the brake device of Henry in order to control the electric brake system with precision in a parking state (see US 20080048596 A1 [Konishi]; [0012]).
Regarding Claim 3, Henry modified by Konishi teaches wherein, in a state where the vehicle is parked, the efficiency estimation section issues a command for causing the electric motor to operate in a release direction, and thus estimates the relationship between the thrust and the current at the time of release (see [0043], Fig. 14, Claim 1, Claim 23).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry (US 20070085414 A1) as applied to Claim 1, above, in view of Murata et. al. (US 20160221550 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Henry teaches the electric brake device according to Claim 1.
Henry does not explicitly teach wherein the efficiency estimation section estimates the relationship between current and thrust from temperature difference in accordance with the temperature at the time of estimation of the current-thrust relationship.
Murata teaches wherein the efficiency estimation section estimates the relationship between current and thrust from temperature difference in accordance with the temperature at the time of estimation of the current-thrust relationship (see [0098-0099]).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, to combine the teachings of Murata with the electric brake device of Henry in order to ensure the desired braking force is applied even in the case of heat slack (see US 20160221550 A1 [Murata]; [0019])
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et. al. (US 20120193177 A1) in view of Okada (US 20190359195 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Goto discloses an electric motor (19); a linear motion section (27) that moves due to the rotation of the electric motor (19); a brake pad (9) that presses a disc rotor (3) that rotates together with a wheel through the use of a thrust generated by the movement of the linear motion section (27); and a motor control device (7) that controls the rotation of the electric motor (19) (see Fig. 2, Fig. 3), wherein the motor control device (7) includes an efficiency estimation section that estimates the relationship between a current supplied to the electric motor and the thrust and wherein the expected current value is a current value that is calculated from a specific thrust by using a value obtained by estimating or assuming in advance the relationship between current and thrust (see Fig. 4, [0034-0035], [0040-0041]).
Goto appears to disclose the current/thrust estimation in accordance with the relationship between an increase in the current value of the electric motor with respect to an increase in the position of the linear motion section at an expected current value for generating a specific thrust and the current value of the electric motor (see [0040-0042], [0060-0063], [0068]), but does not explicitly disclose the position/current relationship.
Okada teaches estimating the relationship between a current supplied to the electric motor and the thrust in accordance with the relationship between an increase in the current value of the electric motor with respect to an increase in the position of the linear motion section at an expected current value for generating a specific thrust and the current value of the electric motor (see [0042])
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, to combine the teachings of Okada with the brake device of Goto in order to automatically control the brake device to operate in case of system failures or power loss (see US 20190359195 A1 [Okada]; [0006]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shea Irvin whose telephone number is (571)272-9952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 - 17:00.
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.
/S.W.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights