Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/777,498

BRAKE APPARATUS AND METHOD OF CONTROLLING THE SAME

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Jul 18, 2024
Examiner
BRAUCH, CHARLES JOSEPH
Art Unit
3747
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
HL Mando Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
968 granted / 1185 resolved
+11.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
1217
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
52.8%
+12.8% vs TC avg
§102
31.7%
-8.3% vs TC avg
§112
14.3%
-25.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1185 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
DETAILED ACTION 1. This Final Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed February 17, 2026. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 3. 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. 4. Claim 19 rejection has been overcome. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 5. 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. 6. Claim(s) 1-3 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Tarandek reference (WO 2020/204510 A1). 7. Regarding clam 1, the Tarandek reference discloses: a brake apparatus (FIG. 10) comprising: a first hydraulic pressure supplier (100) connected to one or more of wheel cylinders (33, 34) of a vehicle; a second hydraulic pressure supplier (200) connected to one or more of the wheel cylinders (33, 34); a first controller (100b) configured to control the first hydraulic pressure supplier (100) to supply a first hydraulic pressure to one or more of the wheel cylinders [Best Mode—Paragraph 0006]; and a second controller (200b) configured to control the second hydraulic pressure supplier (200) to supply a second hydraulic pressure to one or more of the wheel cylinders [Best Mode—Paragraph 0005], wherein: the first controller (100b) is configured to connect a first power source of the vehicle (B1) with a first pedal sensor of the vehicle (51) (FIGS. 10-11), the second controller (200b) is configured to connect a second power source (B2) of the vehicle with the first pedal sensor (51) (FIGS. 10-11) of the vehicle, and monitor a first current (FIG. 11—electrical output signal is monitored (via analyzing for speed and movement) by first controller (100b) and as shown by the figure can be shared and monitored by the second controller (200b) [Best Mode Paragraph 0074]) supplied from the first power source (B1) to the first pedal sensor (51), and the second controller (200b) is configured to, in response to detecting that the first current from the first power source is not supplied to the first pedal sensor (FIG. 11—no signal), supply a second current of the second power source (B2) to the first pedal sensor (FIG. 11) (via hard wire or network from 200b) and receive a first pedal signal (implicit) from the first pedal sensor (51). The Tarandak reference disclose the invention as essentially claimed. However, the Tarandak reference fails to disclose a second pedal sensor and a second pedal signal the second pedal sensor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art by the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a second pedal sensor that produces a second pedal signal, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (VI-B). 8. Regarding claim 2, the Tarandak reference further discloses: wherein the first controller includes a first switch (102) configured to selectively allow or block the first current of the first power source (B1) to be supplied to the first pedal sensor (51), a second switch (implicitly disclosed by the express disclosure of “pedal” which implies the signal would not be sent when the pedal is not pressed) configured to selectively allow or block the first pedal signal to be received from the first pedal sensor (101), and a first processor (101) configured to control at least one of the first switch (102) or the second switch (implicit). 9. Regarding claim 3, the Tarandak reference further discloses: wherein the second controller (200b) includes a third switch (202) configured to selectively allow or block the second current of the second power source (B2) to be supplied to the first pedal sensor (51), a fourth switch (implicitly disclosed by explicit disclosure of “pedal” which would have an unpressed position) configured to selectively allow or block the first pedal signal (FIG. 11) to be received from the first pedal sensor (51), and a second processor (201) configured to control at least one of the third switch (202) or the fourth switch (implicit). 10. Regarding claim 19, the Tarandak reference discloses: a method of controlling a brake apparatus (FIG. 10), the method comprising: monitoring whether a first current from a first power source (B1) of a vehicle is supplied to the first pedal sensor (51) to which a first controller (100b) is connected; when the first current from the first power source (B1) is not supplied to the first pedal sensor (implicitly disclosed by explicit disclosure of “pedal” since it implies the pedal is not pressed), supplying a second current of a second power source (B2) of the vehicle from the second power source (B2) and a second controller (200b) connected to the first pedal sensor (51) (FIG. 11); receiving a first pedal signal from the first pedal sensor (51) (FIG. 11); and The Tarandak reference disclose the invention as essentially claimed. However, the Tarandak reference fails to disclose a second pedal sensor and a second pedal signal from the second pedal sensor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art by the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a second pedal sensor that produces a second pedal signal, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (VI-B). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4-18 and 20 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. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed February 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that “even when a failure, such as a power cutoff or inoperability, occurs in any one of the first pedal sensor 61 or the second pedal sensor 62, the first controller 110 and the second controller 210 may acquire a pedal signal from another pedal sensor and identify the driver’s brake intention,” is critical indicating that mitigation of the failure of the second pedal sensor is critical. A feature which is taught as critical in the specification and is not recited in the claims should result in a rejection of such claim under the enablement provision section of 35 U.S.C. 112. MPEP 2164.08(c). See page 47 of specification discussing critical values stating, as one example, “When it is determined that any one of the first pedal sensor 61 or the second pedal sensor 62 is in a failed state, the second processor 211 may control the brake operation based on the first pedal signal which has been determined to be in a normal state.” Amending the claims so that detecting current that is not supplied to second pedal sensor 62 would overcome this issue. 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 CHARLES J BRAUCH whose telephone number is (313)446-6511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM to 6 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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571) 272-1196. 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. /CHARLES JOSEPH BRAUCH/ Examiner Art Unit 3747 /LONG T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 18, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Feb 17, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 27, 2026
Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600330
Sensor assembly for a vehicle and multi-circuit braking system
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600392
INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600365
DETERMINATION OF VALUE REPRESENTATIVE OF AGGRESSIVENESS IN OPERATION OF A TRANSPORT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12583512
CONTROL DEVICE, ELECTRIC POWER STEERING DEVICE, AND CONTROL METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12559107
RANGE PREDICTION FOR VEHICLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+14.2%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1185 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