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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant contends, in Applicant Arguments filed 25th August 2026, that prior art of record Henry “does not disclose estimating a relationship between current and thrust in accordance with a relationship between a differential motor current value with respect to a position of the linear motion section and the motor current value” in regard to the 35 USC 102 rejection of Claim 1 previously presented. This argument is not persuasive. While it is agreed that Henry discloses “estimating load torque/force from measure current and measured actuator position/speed using a mathematical model of the actuator”, under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI), this encompasses “estimating a relationship” as claimed in amended Claim 1 (see MPEP 2111 for further discussion of BRI). To estimate load torque/force from measured current and measured actuator position/speed a relationship between current and thrust is inherently estimated, even if it is not explicitly disclosed as an output of Henry. Additionally, this relationship would always be “in accordance with a relationship between differential of motor current value with respect to a position of the linear motion section and the motor current value” because the differential of motor current value as claimed in amended claim 1 is a property that exists inherently in the electromechanical disc brake system of Henry and the limitation “in accordance” as recited is very broad and does not limit the scope of amended claim 1 to require a “efficiency estimation section” or explicit disclosure of a relationship between a differential of the motor current value as disclosed in applicants specification. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1, under prior art of record Henry, is maintained, at least as applicable to Amended Claim 1, as seen below.
Applicant contends, in Applicant Arguments filed 25th August 2026, that prior art of record “Goto and No fails to teach, disclose, or suggest the combination of elements recited in amended claim 1” in regard to the 35 USC 103 rejection of Claim 1 and as the same arguments against Goto apply to the rejection of Claim 10 as previously presented. These arguments are not persuasive. While it is agreed that Goto discloses “updating an electric current/thrust force conversion function based on a comparison between a rotational position/estimated thrust force table”, under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI), this encompasses “estimating a relationship between a current supplied to the electric motor and the thrust” because an electric current/thrust force conversion function is a type of “relationship”. Additionally, this relationship would always be “in accordance with a relationship between differential of motor current value with respect to a position of the linear motion section and the motor current value” because the differential of motor current value as claimed in amended claim 1 is a property that exists inherently in the electromechanical disc brake system of Goto and the limitation “in accordance” as recited is very broad and does not limit the scope of amended claim 1 to require a “efficiency estimation section” or explicit disclosure of a relationship between a differential of the motor current value as disclosed in applicants specification. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1, under 35 USC 103 is maintained, at least as applicable to Amended Claim 1, as seen below.
Applicant contends, in Applicant Arguments filed 25th August 2026, that the “combination of Goto and Okada fails to teach, disclose, or suggest the combination of elements recited in amended claim 10. This argument is not persuasive. While Examiner agrees Okada “does not disclose that an expected current value is calculated from a specific thrust by using a value obtain by estimating or assuming in advance the relationship between current and thrust”, because Okada does not explicitly detail an “expected current value” , Goto discloses this in its disclosure of current/thrust tables which are inherently a list of “expected current value” and the corresponding thrust (see [0040-0041]). Additionally, It is agreed Okada discloses “supply current to a solenoid and an electric motor such that a piston is advanced by a set distance”, but Okada also further discloses wherein the distance is chosen “such that the braking force is estimated to be restored to the parking braking force if the piston 42 is advanced by the distance” (see Okada [0042]). Thus, Okada discloses a relationship between current and thrust calculated in advance through the distance of the piston. Therefore, in combination Okada and Goto teach the limitations of Claim 10. Lastly, it should be noted that these limitation as recited in Claim 10 also utilize the language “in accordance” which does not require the explicit disclosure of a “efficiency estimation section” as disclosed in applicants’ specification. Therefore, the rejection of claim 10, under 35 USC 103 is maintained, at least as applicable to Amended Claim 10, as seen below.
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.
Claim 10 is 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.
Regarding Claim 10, the limitation “wherein the expected current value” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation and as such it is unclear what the “expected current value” is intended to refer to. Even considering how the limitation is applied in the non-amended Claim 10 is it unclear how this limitation could be similarly applied to the amended claim, thus, for purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted to read “wherein an expected current value”.
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 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 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 a relationship between a current supplied to the electric motor (16) and the thrust (34) in accordance with a relationship between a differential of a current value of the electric motor with respect to a position of the linear motion section and the current value (16) of the electric motor (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2). It should be noted that while Henry does not explicitly disclose a relationship between a differential of a current value of the electric motor with respect to a position of the linear motion section and the current value, the relationship inherently exists in conventional electromechanical brake systems including Henry, thus Henry does disclose the estimation of the relationship between a current supplied to the electric motor and the thrust in accordance with the relationship.
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 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 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 a relationship between a current supplied to the electric motor and the thrust in accordance with a relationship between a differential of a current value of the electric motor with respect to a position of the linear motion section and the current value of the electric motor (19) (see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, [0034-0035], [0041-0042). It should be noted that while Goto does not explicitly disclose a relationship between a differential of a current value of the electric motor with respect to a position of the linear motion section and the current value, the relationship inherently exists in conventional electromechanical brake systems including Goto, thus Goto does disclose the estimation of the relationship between a current supplied to the electric motor and the thrust in accordance with the relationship.
Goto 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) and the relationship between position and current is explicit (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 explicitly identifying the relationship between position and current in the electromechanical system 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 in accordance with a relationship between a differential of a current value of the electric motor with respect to a position of the linear motion section 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]). It should be noted that while Goto does not explicitly disclose a relationship between a differential of a current value of the electric motor with respect to a position of the linear motion section and the current value, the relationship inherently exists in conventional electromechanical brake systems including Goto, thus Goto does disclose the estimation of the relationship between a current supplied to the electric motor and the thrust in accordance with the relationship.
Goto does not explicitly disclose the position/current relationship.
Okada explicitly teaches estimating the relationship between a current supplied to the electric motor and the thrust in advanced using a position/current relationship (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
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 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