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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 3 recites “when the first MCU or the second MCU malfunctions, the MCU that does not malfunction is configured to drive the first EPB and the second EPB through the first EPB motor driver or the second EPB motor driver”. Based on the language of the claim, there is an instance where the first MCU could fail, but the first EPB motor driver still be used. There is also an instance where the second MCU could fail, but the second EPB motor driver still be used. However, this does not appear to be shown in the description. Appropriate action is required.
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 4, 6, 9, 16, and 19 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.
The term “some braking performance” in claims 4, 6, 9, 16, and 19 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “some braking performance” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate action is required.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al US 2022/0289162.
Regarding claim 1, Lee et al discloses an electronic brake system control device, the device comprising: a first brake controller 10 comprising a motor position sensor (see paragraph [0071]), a first motor driver 122 configured to drive a hydraulic brake, a valve driver, a first electronic parking brake (EPB) motor driver 118 configured to drive an EPB, and a first main control unit (MCU) 102; and a second brake controller 20 comprising a second motor driver 200 configured to drive the hydraulic brake, a second EPB motor driver 210 configured to drive the EPB, and a second MCU 204, wherein the first MCU is configured to control the first motor driver to drive the hydraulic brake, and the second MCU is configured to control the second motor driver to drive the hydraulic brake. See paragraphs [0019] and [0057]-[0078].
Regarding claim 2, Lee et al discloses wherein the EPB comprises a first EPB and a second EPB, the first MCU is configured to drive the first EPB and the second EPB through the first EPB motor driver, and the second MCU is configured to drive the first EPB and the second EPB through the second EPB motor driver. See paragraphs [0048], [0049], [0061], and [0062].
Regarding claim 3, Lee et al discloses wherein, when the first MCU or the second MCU malfunctions, the MCU that does not malfunction is configured to drive the first EPB and the second EPB through the first EPB motor driver or the second EPB motor driver. See paragraphs [0026], [0053], [0060], and [0069]-[0073].
Regarding claim 4, Lee et al discloses wherein, when the first MCU malfunctions, the second MCU is configured to drive the first motor driver or the second motor driver to maintain some braking performance of the hydraulic brake. See paragraphs [0026], [0053], [0060], and [0069]-[0073].
Regarding claim 5, Lee et al discloses wherein, when the first MCU malfunctions, the second MCU is configured to perform a brake boosting system (BBS) function. See paragraphs [0004] and [0026].
Regarding claim 6, Lee et al discloses wherein, when the second MCU malfunctions, the first MCU is configured to drive the first motor driver or the second motor driver to maintain some braking performance of the hydraulic brake. See paragraphs [0026], [0053], [0060], and [0069]-[0073].
Regarding claim 8, Lee et al discloses wherein the EPB comprises a first EPB and a second EPB, the second MCU is configured to drive both the first EPB and the second EPB through the second EPB motor driver, and the first MCU is configured to drive the first EPB motor through the first EPB motor driver. See paragraphs [0048], [0049], [0061], and [0062].
Regarding claim 9, Lee et al discloses wherein, when the second MCU malfunctions, the first MCU is configured to drive the first EPB through the first EPB motor driver to maintain some braking performance of the EPB. See paragraphs [0026], [0053], [0060], and [0069]-[0073].
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Lee et al discloses wherein the first brake controller and the second brake controller are included in one package 50. See FIG. 2.
Regarding claim 11, Lee et al discloses an electronic brake system control device, the device comprising: a first brake controller 10 comprising a motor position sensor (see paragraph [0071]), a first motor driver 122 configured to drive a hydraulic brake, a valve driver, a first EPB motor driver 118 configured to drive an EPB, and a first main control unit (MCU) 102; and a second brake controller 20 comprising a second EPB motor driver 200 configured to drive the EPB, and a second MCU 204, wherein the first MCU is configured to control the first motor driver to drive the hydraulic brake. See paragraphs [0019] and [0057]-[0078].
Regarding claim 12, Lee et al discloses wherein the EPB comprises a first EPB and a second EPB, the first MCU is configured to drive the first EPB and the second EPB through the first EPB motor driver, and the second MCU is configured to drive the first EPB and the second EPB through the second EPB motor driver. See paragraphs [0048], [0049], [0061], and [0062].
Regarding claim 13, Lee et al discloses wherein, when the first MCU or the second MCU malfunctions, the MCU that does not malfunction is configured to drive the first EPB and the second EPB through the first EPB motor driver or the second EPB motor driver. See paragraphs [0026], [0053], [0060], and [0069]-[0073].
Regarding claim 14, Lee et al discloses wherein, when the first MCU malfunctions, the second MCU is configured to drive the first EPB and the second EPB through the second EPB motor driver to maintain braking performance. See paragraphs [0004] and [0026].
Regarding claim 15, Lee et al discloses wherein, when the first MCU malfunctions, the second MCU is configured to perform a brake boosting system (BBS) function. See paragraphs [0004] and [0026].
Regarding claim 16, Lee et al discloses wherein, when the second MCU malfunctions, the first MCU is configured to drive the first motor driver to maintain some braking performance of the hydraulic brake. See paragraphs [0026], [0053], [0060], and [0069]-[0073].
Regarding claim 18, Lee et al discloses wherein the EPB comprises a first EPB and a second EPB, the second MCU is configured to drive the first EPB and the second EPB through the second EPB motor driver, and the second MCU is configured to drive the first EPB through the first EPB motor driver. See paragraphs [0026], [0053], [0060], and [0069]-[0073].
Regarding claim 19, Lee et al discloses wherein, when the second MCU malfunctions, the first MCU is configured to drive the first EPB through the first EPB motor driver to maintain some braking performance of the EPB. See paragraphs [0026], [0053], [0060], and [0069]-[0073].
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.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al, as applied above, in view of Liu CN 114056308 (English translation provided).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Lee et al discloses wherein, when the second MCU malfunctions, the first MCU is configured to perform functions of the BBS, an antilock braking system (ABS), an electronic stability control (ESC). See paragraphs [0004], [0026], [0053], [0060], and [0069]-[0073].
Lee et al fails to explicitly disclose, but Liu discloses wherein, when the second MCU malfunctions, the first MCU is configured to perform an electronic brake-force distribution (EBD). See page 2 of 6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the EBD as disclosed by Liu in the system of Lee et al for safety purposes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH J DALLO whose telephone number is (313)446-4844. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-7pm ET M-Th.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/JOSEPH J DALLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747