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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed on 05/15/2026 for application number 18/884,961 filed on 09/13/2024, in which claims 1-27 were originally presented for examination. Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-10, 12-18, 20-22, 24 & 25 is/are currently amended. No claim(s) has/have been cancelled, or new claim(s) has/have been added. Accordingly, claims 1-27 is/are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 USC §119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. GB-2313972.8, filed on 09/13/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/13/2024 has been received and considered.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs (or columns and lines) in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP §2111.01.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed on 05/15/2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Regarding the Claim Objections: The claim(s) objection is/are withdrawn, as the amended claims filed on 05/15/2026 have properly addressed the claim(s) informality objection(s) recited in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 02/19/2026. However, applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground of Claim(s) Objection(s) presented below.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC §112(b): The rejection(s) of claim(s) for lack of antecedent basis are withdrawn, as the amended claims filed on 05/15/2026 has/have overcome this/these rejection(s). However, applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection under §112(b) presented below.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC §102(a)(1): Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of the claim(s) as being clearly anticipated by the prior art of Okada (US-2014/0001987-A1) have been fully considered. However, those arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that:
“Okada does not discuss any "fault conditions" that would trigger any kind of change in behaviour with the system. Claim I recites "during a fault condition in which the inverter controller is non-working, …”
… The skilled reader would understand this as an active motor control technique. Active Short Circuit is certainly not a fault condition of the inverter. However, as discussed above, the fault condition in which the present invention attempts to function is when the inverter controller is in a non-working condition …
Applicant submits that claim I as amended is novel over Okada since Okada does not disclose an electric braking system in which a safe state braking controller (which is separated from the inverter controller) controls the inverter switches and/or resistor switch when the inverter is in a non-working condition …” (see Remarks pages 9-14; emphasis added)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments are all focusing on new limitations added to the amended base claim 1 apparently to overcome the current anticipation rejection under §102(a)(1) as recited in the Non-Final office action mailed on 02/19/2026. Those arguments are rendered moot in light of the new grounds of rejection outlined below, which were necessitated by the applicant’s amendment, i.e., Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been addressed in the new rejection outlined below. For at least the foregoing reasons, and the rejections outlined below, the prior art rejections are maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 4, 14 & 26 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “one or more of the switches in the inverter” in lines 13-14. It should be “one or more of the switches of the inverter”.
Claim 1 recites “the plurality of the inverter switches” in line 23. It should be “the plurality of switches of the inverter”.
Claim 4 recites "the the open state" in line 3. It should be "the open state".
Claim 14 recites “the plurality of switches in the inverter” in lines 7-8. It should be “the plurality of switches of the inverter”.
Claim 26 recites “the plurality of wheels” in line 6. It should be “the plurality of wheels.”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of 35 USC §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 USC §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 3-13 are rejected under 35 USC §112(b) because:
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the open state” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if the said claim 3 “the open state” limitation refers to “an open state” limitation in claim 1 line 23, “an open state” limitation in claim 2 line 5, or if being the same or different controller(s).
Examiner suggests amending claim 2 to recite “the open state” in line 5 to overcome this rejection.
Claims 4-13 are rejected for incorporating the error(s) of their respective base claims by dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC §102 and §103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC §102 and §103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 USC §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(s) 1-7, 14-19, 26 & 27 is/are rejected under 35 USC §102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by PG Pub. US-2014/0001987-A1 by Koichi Okada (hereinafter “Okada”)
As per Claim 1, Okada discloses an electric braking system for a vehicle, comprising:
an electric machine mechanically coupled to one or more wheels of a vehicle and including a rotor (Okada, in at least Fig(s). 2 [reproduced here for convenience] & 7, and ¶73, discloses In-Wheel Motor System(s) 8 and Motor Unit(s) 6, wherein the electric vehicle includes in-wheel motor system(s) 8, wherein each wheel 2 of the electric vehicle is equipped with a motor unit 6 that operates independently of other motor unit(s) 6);
an inverter for generating multi-phase AC output voltages from positive and negative DC input voltages for powering the electric machine, the positive and negative DC voltages being provided by respective positive and negative DC power rails (Okada, in at least Fig(s). 1, 2, 4B, 7 & 8, and ¶¶17, 18, 41, 45, 47, 75 & 90, discloses Inverter 31 & Inverter Unit(s) 22, wherein the power circuitry 28 of the inverter unite 22 includes (1) the inverter 31 that is configured to convert a DC power from a battery unit 19 into a three-phase AC power used to drive the motor unit 6, wherein the inverter 31 includes a positive voltage side and a negative voltage side, both connecting to the battery unit 19 [i.e., positive and negative DC power rails]), the inverter comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
846
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Okada’s Fig. 2 (emphasis added)
for each phase, a plurality of switches connected between the DC input voltages and a respective AC output (Okada, in at least Fig(s). 1, 2, 4B, 7 [reproduced here for convenience] & 8, and ¶¶17, 18, 41, 45, 47, 75 & 90, discloses Switches 103 & 104, and controlling the circuit 31 with a switchable connection configuration as well as the switch(s) 103 & 104, wherein the inverter 31 includes a positive voltage side and a negative voltage side, both connecting to the battery unit 19); and
PNG
media_image2.png
398
664
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Okada’s Fig. 7 (emphasis added)
an inverter controller for controlling each of the switches using Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) over a plurality of PWM periods to generate the multi-phase AC output voltages for the electric machine (Okada, in at least Fig(s). 1, 2, 4B, 7 & 8, and ¶¶17, 18, 41, 45, 47, 75 & 90, discloses Inverter 31, Inverter Unit(s) 22 & PWM Driver 32, wherein the power circuitry 28 of the inverter unite 22 includes (1) the inverter 31 that is configured to convert a DC power from a battery unit 19 into a three-phase AC power used to drive the motor unit 6 and (2) a PWM driver 32 configured to control the inverter 31 [i.e., an inverter controller], wherein the inverter unit(s) 22 configured to perform control of the respective traction motor units 6 according to commands from the ECU 21, and the braking controller unit 23); and
a safe state braking system, comprising:
a braking controller having an output for controlling one or more of the switches in the inverter (Okada, in at least Fig. 7, and ¶¶17, 18 & 67, discloses the controller 25 that is having an output for controlling switches of the inverter, wherein the inverter unit(s) 22 configured to perform control of the respective traction motor units 6 according to commands from the ECU 21, and the braking controller unit 23); and
a resistor connected between the positive and negative DC power rails, the resistor being connected in series with a controllable switch (Okada, in at least Fig(s). 2 & 7, and ¶¶17, 18 & 75, discloses a resistor 102 between positive and negative power rails in series with a switch 103),
wherein, during a fault condition in which the inverter controller is non-working, the braking controller of the safe state braking system is configured to control one or more of the controllable switch in series with the resistor, and the plurality of switches of the inverter to use uncontrolled regenerated currents from the electric machine to apply a controlled braking torque to the rotor of the electric machine (Okada, in at least Fig(s). 2 & 7, and ¶¶17, 18 & 67, discloses the regenerative braking and short-circuit braking switching controller 25 causes the connection configuration of the inverter 31 as the aforementioned circuit with a switchable connection configuration to be switched to (c) the short-circuit connection [i.e., a fault condition in which the inverter controller is non-working] configuration that causes motor coils of the motor unit 6 to short-circuit, wherein short-circuiting the motor coils of the motor unit 6 creates a significant braking force, however, merely short-circuiting the motor coils results in the generation of excessively large braking torque, thus leading to abrupt braking of a vehicle, wherein in order to address this, the short-circuit current controller 26 controls a short-circuit current that flows when the connection configuration of the inverter 31 is (c) the short-circuit connection configuration, in such a way to cause only a required torque to be generated in the motor unit 6, thus creating a desired braking torque without leading to abrupt braking of a vehicle [i.e., apply a controlled braking torque to the rotor of the electric machine]. Okada further discloses the regenerative braking and short circuit braking switching controller 25 causes the connection configuration of the inverter 31 to be switched back to (b) the regenerative braking connection configuration, to allow for performing a standard regenerating braking operation), and
wherein the uncontrolled regenerated currents are generated by the electric machine when the plurality of inverter switches are in an open state (Okada, in at least Fig(s). 2 & 7, and ¶¶14, 17, 18, 47, 48, 60-67, 70 & 90, discloses the inverter 31 includes a combination of a plurality of switching devices 31a, 31b and freewheeling diodes 31d each connected in parallel with the corresponding one of the switching devices 31a & 31b, wherein the switching devices 31a, 31b are opened or closed to form various combinations of open states and closed states that implement the aforementioned circuit with a switchable connection configuration. Okada further discloses the controller 25 controls switches of the inverter 31 between an open and closed configuration, i.e., engaging and disengaging a short-circuit mode, by PWM controller 32, wherein controlled braking torque being provided by regen currents flowing through the freewheeling diodes of the inverter switches and through the resistor. Okada also discloses the drive devices 31a, 31b of the inverter 31 may each be switched on or off to successively change the combination of switched-on device(s) and switched-off device(s) to create a torque that is positive or negative with respect to the rotational direction of the motor unit, thus providing (a) the drive operative connection configuration and (b) the regenerative braking connection configuration, respectively, wherein, with the drive devices 31a, 31b being all switched off, the output power of the motor unit becomes zero. At this point, the motor rotor of the motor unit 6 is free to rotate. In the embodiment under discussion, the drive devices 31Aa, 31Ab may be all switched off to provide the aforementioned regenerative braking connection configuration).
As per claim 2, Okada discloses the electric braking system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Okada further discloses wherein the braking controller of the safe state braking system is configured to control one or more of the switches of the inverter in an open circuit mode in which all of the plurality of switches of the inverter are open, and the braking controller of the safe state braking system is configured to control the controllable switch in series with the resistor to alternate between an open state and a closed state at a first frequency, and wherein the controlled braking torque is provided by the uncontrolled regenerated currents flowing through anti-parallel diodes connected to respective switches of the inverter, and through the resistor (Okada, in at least Fig(s). 2 & 7, and ¶¶14, 17, 18, 47, 48, 67 & 70, discloses the inverter 31 includes a combination of a plurality of switching devices 31a, 31b and freewheeling diodes 31d each connected in parallel with the corresponding one of the switching devices 31a & 31b, wherein the switching devices 31a, 31b are opened or closed to form various combinations of open states and closed states that implement the aforementioned circuit with a switchable connection configuration. Okada further discloses the controller 25 controls switches of the inverter 31 between an open and closed configuration, i.e., engaging and disengaging a short-circuit mode, by PWM controller 32 [i.e., at a first frequency], wherein controlled braking torque being provided by regen currents flowing through the freewheeling diodes of the inverter switches and through the resistor).
As per claim 3, Okada discloses the electric braking system of claim 2, accordingly, the rejection of claim 2 above is incorporated. Okada further discloses wherein the braking controller of the safe state braking system is configured to vary a period of time spent in each of the open state and the closed state for the first frequency (Okada, in at least Fig(s). 2 & 7, and ¶¶14 & 70, discloses the inverter 31 includes a combination of a plurality of switching devices 31a, 31b and freewheeling diodes 31d each connected in parallel with the corresponding one of the switching devices 31a & 31b, wherein the switching devices 31a, 31b are opened or closed to form various combinations of open states and closed states that implement the aforementioned circuit with a switchable connection configuration).
As per claim 4, Okada discloses the electric braking system of claim 3, accordingly, the rejection of claim 3 above is incorporated. Okada further discloses wherein the braking controller of the safe state braking system is configured to vary the period of time spent in each of 0% of the time is in the open state, and the second condition in which 0% of the period of time is in the closed state and 100% of the period of time is in the open state (Okada, in at least Fig(s). 2 & 7, and ¶¶14 & 70, discloses the inverter 31 includes a combination of a plurality of switching devices 31a, 31b and freewheeling diodes 31d each connected in parallel with the corresponding one of the switching devices 31a & 31b, wherein the switching devices 31a, 31b are opened or closed to form various combinations of open states [i.e., 100% of the period of time is in the open state] and closed states [i.e., 100% of the period of time is in the closed state] that implement the aforementioned circuit with a switchable connection configuration).
As per claim 5, Okada discloses the electric braking system of claim 3, accordingly, the rejection of claim 3 above is incorporated. Okada further discloses wherein a proportion of time spent in each of the open state and the closed state is dependent on speed data indicative of a rotational speed of the rotor of the electric machine, and braking data indicative of a desired braking torque to apply to the electric machine to slow the rotational speed of the rotor of the electric machine (Okada, in at least Fig(s). 2 & 7, and ¶¶50 & 83, discloses sensor 24 configured to sense a rotational frequency of a wheel 2, i.e., a rotational speed of a wheel 2, wherein the speed of rotation of the inner member 52 is reduced with respect to that of rotation of the rotational output shaft 74).
As per claim 6, Okada discloses the electric braking system of claim 5, accordingly, the rejection of claim 5 above is incorporated. Okada further discloses wherein the rotational speed of the rotor of the electric machine is proportional to a rotational speed of one of the one or more wheels that are mechanically coupled to the rotor of the electric machine (Okada, in at least Fig(s). 2 & 7, and ¶¶50 & 83, discloses, as shown in Fig. 2, the wheel bearing unit 4 or a support structure such as a knuckle (not shown) that supports the wheel bearing unit 4 may include the sensor 24 configured to sense a rotational frequency of a wheel 2, i.e., a rotational speed of a wheel 2, wherein the speed of rotation of the inner member 52 is reduced with respect to that of rotation of the rotational output shaft 74).
As per claim 7, Okada discloses the electric braking system of claim 5, accordingly, the rejection of claim 5 above is incorporated. Okada further discloses wherein the desired braking torque is proportional to a braking torque applied to a brake pedal by a user (Okada, in at least Fig(s). 2 & 7, and ¶¶42, discloses a decelerating signal produced from a brake manipulation unit 17, wherein the brake manipulation unit 17 includes a pedal such as a brake pedal and a sensor 17 a configured to sense the depression of the pedal).
As per claim 26, Okada discloses a vehicle comprising:
a plurality of wheels; and
an electronic braking system according to claim 1 (Okada discloses an electric braking system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated), wherein
the vehicle further comprises:
at least one electric machine mechanically coupled to one or more of the plurality of wheels for driving the one or more of the plurality of wheels (Okada, in at least Fig(s). 1, 2 & 7, and ¶¶40, discloses an electric vehicle that is a four-wheel vehicle that includes a vehicle body 1 with left and right rear wheels 2 and left and right front wheels 3, with the rear wheels being drive wheels and the front wheels being driven wheels, wherein the left and right drive wheels 2, 2 are driven by respective independent traction motor units 6).
As per claim 27, Okada discloses the vehicle of claim 26, accordingly, the rejection of claim 26 above is incorporated. Okada further discloses wherein one or more of the wheels mechanically coupled to a respective electric machine is not coupled to a mechanical braking system (Okada, in at least Fig(s). 1, 2 & 7, and ¶¶9, 40-43 & 68, discloses an object of the present invention is to provide a motor drive device that enables performing a braking operation with a motor even when a battery is fully charged, allows for the provision of smaller mechanical brake(s) or even the omission of mechanical brake(s). Okada further discloses the wheels 2, 3 are equipped with respective electrically driven mechanical brakes 9, wherein the braking controller unit 23, which may include a customized electronic control unit (ECU), may be configured to receive from the torque allocator 48 a braking torque command allocated to the operation of the mechanical brakes and to allocate appropriate braking torque command values to the mechanical brakes 9 equipped to the respective wheels 2, 3. Okada also discloses a braking force created in a motor unit 6 is used to brake an electric vehicle or any machine equipped with a motor or motor unit, which allows for advantageously limiting the use of mechanical brake(s) 9 to auxiliary purposes, such as a final touch to ensure the stopping of a vehicle during a braking operation or an assist for a braking operation with a motor unit 6, which in turn allows for the provision of smaller mechanical brake(s) or even the omission of mechanical brake(s)).
As per claim 14-19, the claims is directed towards system(s) that recite(s) similar limitations performed by the system(s) of claim(s) 2-7. The cited portions of Okada used in the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2-7 teach(s) the same steps performed by the system(s) of claim(s) 14-19. Therefore, claim(s) 14-19 is/are rejected under the same rationales used in the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2-7 as outlined above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 20-25 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim(s) 8-13 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC §112(b) or 35 USC §112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph (i.e., claims 8-13), set forth in this Office Action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See previously mailed PTO-892 forms.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 Tarek Elarabi whose telephone number is (313)446-4911. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 6:00 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Peter Nolan can be reached on (571)270-7016. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair.
Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571)272-1000.
/Tarek Elarabi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights