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 .
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 Wingender et al. (US 2018/0257619).
Regarding claim 1, Wingender discloses an electronic brake apparatus (see Abstract, FIG. 1) comprising: an input unit (30) configured to move in a first direction according to a movement of a brake pedal (see ¶ 0048); an output unit (60) configured to be pressed according to a movement of the input unit and press a piston of a master cylinder connected to the output unit in the first direction (see FIG. 1; ¶ 0051); an electric booster (10) including a motor (12), a rack (60) configured to press the output unit (see ¶ 0051, FIG. 8), and a motion conversion unit (16, 70) configured to convert a rotational motion of the motor into a linear motion of the rack and move the rack forward or backward in the first direction (see ¶ 0052); and an electronic control unit (14) configured to control an operation of the motor according to a movement of the input unit (see ¶ 0024), wherein the electronic control unit (14) is positioned to one side in second direction of the electric booster (see FIG. 13).
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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wingender et al. (US 2018/0257619), as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Leiber et al. (US 2018/0065609).
Regarding claim 2, Wingender discloses that a sensor arrangement is integrated into the electronic control unit but does not provide details of the sensor arrangement.
Leiber teaches an electromechanical brake (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-7) comprising an electronic control unit (ECU) (see ¶ 0020) comprising: a motor position sensor (24) configured to detect a rotation of the motor (see ¶ 0085); a pedal travel sensor (24A) configured to detect a movement of the input unit (see ¶ 0088); and a Printed Circuit Board (PCB) configuring an electronic circuit for controlling the motor (see e.g. ¶ 0094).
It would have been obvious to configure the brake apparatus of Wingender to have the pedal travel sensor and the motor rotation sensor located on a printed circuit board of the control unit to provide a compact brake actuation system, which, in particular, also offers a great deal of latitude in constructive design with regard to the sensor devices and can thus also be used flexibly in different vehicles or installation situations (see e.g. Leiber, ¶ 0016).
Regarding claim 3, Leiber discloses that a rotation shaft of the motor is aligned in a second direction (see e.g. FIG. 2; ¶ 0089), the PCB is positioned to one side in second direction of the motor (see FIG. 2), and the motor position sensor is positioned to one side in second direction of the motor on the PCB and configured to detect a rotation of the motor (see FIG. 2, ¶ 0085).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wingender et al. (US 2018/0257619) and Leiber et al. (US 2018/0065609), as applied to claim 3, above, and further in view of Jurgens (US 2016/0016567).
Regarding claim 4, neither Wingender or Leiber do not disclose a sensor rod connected to the input unit, extending in the second direction, and moving together with the input unit; and a PTS magnet provided at one end of the sensor rod,wherein the pedal travel sensor is provided to one side in second direction of the PTS magnet on the PCB and configured to detect a movement of the PTS magnet. Jurgens teaches an electromechanical brake (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-4) comprising an input unit (12) and sensor rod (see FIG. 1, rod on which magnet (17) is mounted; see also ¶ 0036) connected to the input unit (see FIG. 1, ¶ 0036), extending in the second direction, and moving together with the input unit (see FIG. 1, ¶ 0036); and a PTS magnet (17) provided at one end of the sensor rod (see FIG. 1), wherein a pedal travel sensor (8) is provided to one side in second direction of the PTS magnet on the PCB and configured to detect a movement of the PTS magnet (see ¶ 0036). It would have been obvious to combine the sensor rod and magnet of Jurgens with the Wingender/Leiber device, to utilize a simpler construction (e.g. Jurgens utilizes a simple rod connection whereas Leiber utilizes a rack, gear and rotating rod) for placing the magnet in proximity to the sensor located on the printed circuit board.
Regarding claim 6, Leiber teaches that the motor position sensor is positioned on a first PCB (see FIG. 2). Jurgen teaches that the PCB includes a first PCB (5) and a second PCB (6), the pedal travel sensor is positioned on the second PCB (see FIG. 1), and the first PCB is electrically connected to the second PCB (see ¶ 0038; FIG. 4). It would have been obvious to combine the second PCB of Jurgen with the Wingender/Leiber device to position the pedal travel sensor closer to the magnet connected to the input element.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wingender et al. (US 2018/0257619), as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Kobayashi et al. (US 2002/0158510).
Regarding claim 7, Wingender does not disclose that the output unit includes: an output rod configured to press the piston of the master cylinder; a reaction disk configured to be pressed by the input unit and press the output rod; and a boost body configured to be pressed by the rack or the input unit and press the reaction disk.
Kobayashi teaches an electronic brake apparatus (see Abstract, FIG. 1) comprising an output unit (7, 25), wherein the output unit includes: an output rod (7) configured to press the piston of the master cylinder (see FIG. 1); a reaction disk (25) configured to be pressed by the input unit and press the output rod (see ¶ 0026); and a boost body (26) configured to be pressed by the rack or the input unit and press the reaction disk (see ¶ 0026).
It would have been obvious to combine the reaction disk of Kobayashi with the device of Wingender to provide an improved feedback feel on the pedal operated by a user.
Regarding claim 8, Kobayashi teaches that when the rack moves forward in the first direction to press the boost body, the rack comes into contact with the input unit and moves the input unit forward in the first direction (see ¶ 0026).
Regarding claim 9, Kobayashi discloses that the brake pedal is pressed to move in the first direction, the input unit moves independently from the rack (see ¶ 0026).
Regarding claim 10, Kobayashi discloses that the brake pedal is not pressed, the input unit is spaced a preset gap from the reaction disk (see FIG. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J LANE whose telephone number is (571)270-5988. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, 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.
/NICHOLAS J LANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
August 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights