DETAILED ACTION
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 1-3, 5-9, 11-14, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakashita (US2023/0080487 A1) in view of Kim (US2025/0162555 A1).
Regarding to Claim 1, Sakashita teaches a system to reduce brake drag, comprising:
a hydraulic brake system (Fig. 1, Part 44 area);
an electronic parking brake (EPB) operable to work in conjunction with the hydraulic brake system (Fig. 1, Part 1);
a brake caliper that includes a piston having a seal groove to accommodate a seal within the seal groove (Fig. 1, Part 25, Part 16 is the seal and Part 16 is located in Part 16);
a controller configured to perform operations that include:
detecting an EPB command (Fig. 1, Part 51, Paragraph 21 teaches the operation to reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Sakashita fails to explicitly disclose, but Kim teaches a system, comprising:
in response to the detecting the EPB command, causing the hydraulic brake system to boost hydraulic pressure in the hydraulic brake system independently of driver input to a brake pedal to a target pressure that cause or assists the seal to deform responsive to the EPB command [Sakashita teaches an EPB operation when the pedal is released (Sakashita, Paragraphs 38-40), but is silent whether the EPB is applied when pedal is pressed. Kim teaches an EPB would be applied when the pedal is displaced (Kim, Paragraphs 3-5) to control complex and various braking operations (Kim, Paragraph 4). Therefore, when applying the teachings of Kim to Sakashita, one with ordinary skill in the art would understand and apply EPB operation when there is a pedal operation to control complex and various braking operations (Kim, Paragraph 4).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sakashita to incorporate the teachings of Kim to apply EPB operation when there is a pedal operation in order to control complex and various braking operations (Kim, Paragraph 4).
Regarding to Claim 2, Sakashita in view of Kim teaches the modified system, wherein the operations further comprise: causing the hydraulic pressure to maintain the target pressure for a predetermined period of time responsive to the EPB command (Sakashita, Paragraph 38, based on the teachings, the system would maintain the target pressure at least in a period of time under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding to Claim 3, Sakashita in view of Kim teaches the modified system, wherein the EPB command is a first EPB command to activate the EPB, and the operations further comprise:
detecting a second EPB command to deactivate the EPB (Sakashita, Paragraphs 37-40); and
causing the hydraulic brake system to increase the hydraulic pressure to the target pressure responsive to the second EPB command to deactivate the EPB (Sakashita, Paragraphs 37-40).
Regarding to Claim 5, Sakashita in view of Kim teaches the modified system, wherein the causing the hydraulic brake system to increase the hydraulic pressure includes:
causing the hydraulic brake system to increase the hydraulic pressure within a threshold period of time responsive to the EPB command (Sakashita, Paragraphs 37-40).
Regarding to Claim 6, Sakashita in view of Kim teaches the modified system, wherein the threshold period of time is certain milliseconds (Sakashita, Paragraphs 37-40).
Regarding to Claim 7, Sakashita in view of Kim teaches the modified system, wherein the deformed seal comprises stored elastic potential energy to enable piston retraction (Sakashita, Paragraphs 37-40).
Regarding to Claim 8, Sakashita in view of Kim teaches the modified system, wherein the target pressure is at least certain bar (Sakashita, Paragraphs 37-40).
Regarding to Claim 9, Sakashita in view of Kim teaches the modified system, wherein the deformed seal comprises stored elastic potential energy (Sakashita, Paragraphs 37-40), and wherein the operations further comprise:
causing the piston to retract based on the stored elastic potential energy of the deformed seal (Sakashita, Paragraphs 37-40).
Regarding to Claim 11, Sakashita in view of Kim teaches the modified system, wherein the piston is in contact with a brake pad (Sakashita, Fig. 1, Part 2).
Regarding to Claim 12, Sakashita teaches a method comprising:
detecting, by a controller of a vehicle, an electronic parking brake (EPB) command (Fig. 1, Part 51, Paragraph 21 teaches the operation to reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Sakashita fails to explicitly disclose, but Kim teaches a method comprising:
responsive to the detecting the EPB command, causing a hydraulic brake system to increase hydraulic pressure in the hydraulic brake system to a target pressure that causes a seal within a seal groove of a piston of the hydraulic brake system to deform, independently of driver input to a brake pedal [Sakashita teaches an EPB operation when the pedal is released (Sakashita, Paragraphs 38-40), but is silent whether the EPB is applied when pedal is pressed. Kim teaches an EPB would be applied when the pedal is displaced (Kim, Paragraphs 3-5) to control complex and various braking operations (Kim, Paragraph 4). Therefore, when applying the teachings of Kim to Sakashita, one with ordinary skill in the art would understand and apply EPB operation when there is a pedal operation to control complex and various braking operations (Kim, Paragraph 4).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sakashita to incorporate the teachings of Kim to apply EPB operation when there is a pedal operation in order to control complex and various braking operations (Kim, Paragraph 4).
Regarding to Claim 13, Sakashita in view of Kim teaches the modified method, further comprising:
causing the hydraulic pressure to maintain the target pressure for a predetermined period of time responsive to the EPB command (Sakashita, Paragraph 38, based on the teachings, the system would maintain the target pressure at least in a period of time under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding to Claim 14, Sakashita in view of Kim teaches the modified method, wherein the EPB command is a first EPB command to activate the EPB, and the operations further comprise:
detecting a second EPB command to deactivate the EPB (Sakashita, Paragraphs 37-40); and
causing the hydraulic brake system to increase the hydraulic pressure to the target pressure responsive to the second EPB command to deactivate the EPD (Sakashita, Paragraphs 37-40).
Regarding to Claim 16, Sakashita in view of Kim teaches the modified method, wherein the causing the hydraulic brake system to increase the hydraulic pressure includes:
causing the hydraulic brake system to increase the hydraulic pressure within a threshold period of time responsive to the EPB command (Sakashita, Paragraphs 37-40).
Regarding to Claim 17, Sakashita in view of Kim teaches the modified method, wherein the threshold period of time is certain milliseconds (Sakashita, Paragraphs 37-40).
Regarding to Claim 18, Sakashita in view of Kim teaches the modified method, wherein the deformed seal comprises stored elastic potential energy to enable piston retraction (Sakashita, Paragraphs 37-40).
Regarding to Claim 19, Sakashita in view of Kim teaches the modified method, wherein the target pressure is at least certain bar (Sakashita, Paragraphs 37-40).
Regarding to Claim 20, Sakashita taches the system, wherein the deformed seal comprises stored elastic potential energy (Sakashita, Paragraphs 37-40), and wherein the operations further comprise:
causing the piston to retract based on the stored elastic potential energy of the deformed seal (Sakashita, Paragraphs 37-40).
Regarding to the limitations “250 milliseconds” in Claims 6, 17 and “10 bar” in Claims 8, 19, after reviewing the Specification, the examiner considered the limitations are mere embodiments and the Applicant fails to teach, explain or indicate any specific purpose. Therefore, the limitations are mere optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)) and one with ordinary skill in the art would not consider the limitations are patentable. Therefore, even though the reference is silent about the specific ranges, the examiner considered based on the teachings, one with ordinary skill in the art would understand and decide suitable ranges for the system in order to brake the vehicle (Sakashita, Paragraph 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1, 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim (US2023/0311830 A1) teaches a braking system.
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 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 YI-KAI WANG whose telephone number is (313)446-6613. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible.
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 5712721196. 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.
/YI-KAI WANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights