DETAILED ACTION
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
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 11-17 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the retracted position" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 11-15, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cao et al. (US 2009/0194385 A1).
Re claim 11, Cao et al. disclose a method for controlling an electromechanical brake including an electric motor (26) which acts on a brake actuator (21) via a gear unit (27, 28) to generate a braking force, wherein a switchable and bistable freewheel locking device (1, [0024]), via which a brake release direction of the brake actuator can be locked, is provided to lock the gear unit, wherein the method comprises the following steps: moving back the brake actuator after a braking operation by a fixed predefined distance; and controlling the locking device to fix the brake actuator in the retracted position. ([0035])
Re claim 12, Cao et al. disclose wherein the locking device is actively retracted before the brake is actuated. ([0033])
Re claim 13, Cao et al. disclose wherein the locking device is deactivated by actuating the brake. ([0033])
Re claim 14, Cao et al. disclose wherein the locking device is activated when the vehicle is stationary and the brake is activated in order to create a parking brake. ([0003], [0012])
Re claim 15, Cao et al. disclose wherein the fixed predefined distance is ascertained starting from a point of contact between friction partners of the brake. ([0035])
Re claim 18, Cao et al. disclose an electromechanical brake, comprising: an electric motor (26) which acts on a brake actuator (21) via a gear unit (27, 28) to generate a braking force; a switchable and bistable freewheel locking device (1), via which a brake release direction of the brake actuator can be locked, to lock the gear unit; and a control device which is configured to control the locking device to fix the brake actuator after the brake actuator is moved back. ([0035])
Re claim 19, Cao et al. disclose wherein the brake is a drum brake. ([0005])
Re claim 20, Cao et al. disclose wherein the brake is a disc brake. (Fig. 2)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. (US 2009/0194385 A1) in view of Ralea (US 2005/0269872 A1).
Re claim 16, Cao et al. do not teach wherein the point of contact is ascertained using values from a force sensor and/or torque sensor. Ralea teach moving a brake actuator by a fixed predefined distance using values from a force sensor. ([0017]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to use a force sensor to determine actuator adjustment in order to provide more precise adjustment as taught by Ralea.
9. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. (US 2009/0194385 A1) in view of Ritter et al. (EP 4056436 A1).
Re claim 17, Cao et al. do not teach wherein the point of contact is ascertained using values of a motor current, and/or motor speed and/or motor position. Ritter et al. teach wherein the point of contact is ascertained using values of a motor current, and/or motor speed and/or motor position. ([0041]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to ascertained using values of a motor current, and/or motor speed and/or motor position as an alternative means for determining point of contact to reduce cost, space and weight. ([0003] – [0004])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schumann et al. ‘848, Halasy Wimmer et al, Schumann et al ‘858, Ymaguchi, Schumann et al. ‘688, Blosch et al., Jungbecker et al., Yamaguchi and Pitzer teach similar electromechanical brakes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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.
/MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights