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 .
Examiner Comment – Claim Construction
The claimed braking distribution ratio is taken as magnitude of front wheel braking force over magnitude of rear wheel braking force, e.g. r=Force_front/Force_rear.
Examiner Note
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are adopted to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their 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. SEE MPEP 2149.02 VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e. as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. WL Gore & Associates, inc. v. Garlock, inc., 721 F.2d 1540,220 USPQ303 (Fed, Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 489 US 851 (1984). See also MPEP 2123.
Examiner Comment – 2019 PEG - 35 USC 101
Examiner finds the claims to be directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
Assuming, arguendo, even if claim(s) 1,9 recitation of “determine; calculate; processor configured to; determine; processor further configured to” was identified to fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the per 2019 PEG step 2A prong one, i.e. mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity, claim(s) 1,9 recites “An electro-mechanical brake comprising: a plurality of brake pads respectively mounted on plurality of wheels of a vehicle including front and rear wheels” which is an integration into a practical application per step 2A prong one and is therefore patent eligible subject matter, see MPEP 2106.05 a-h, especially improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field - MPEP 2106.05(a), applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - MPEP 2106.05(b) and effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - MPEP 2106.05(c). The identified structural limitations are limited to a specific technical field of vehicular brakes and further limited to a specific sub facet of this field. The positively claimed limitations identify a particular type of brake using a pad at each individual wheel, as opposed to other technologies such as axle brakes, drum brakes, hydraulic/pneumatic brakes, or an electro motive brake using electric fields of a motor in regenerative braking technologies.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6,9,10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Brearley et al US 5,088,042.
In Re 1-6,9,10 Brearley teaches
An electro-mechanical brake (title) comprising:
a plurality of brake pads (construed as “brake linings” col 1) respectively mounted on plurality of wheels of a vehicle including front and rear wheels (52 fig 4); and
a processor (figs 5-6,circuit, col 3 ll 5-15 “computer” “controller”) configured to correct a first braking distribution ratio (preset ideal braking ratio F/R = 1 col 6 ll 55-69) to determine a second braking distribution ratio (modified ratio col 6 l 65 – col 7 l 10), each of the first and second braking distribution ratios being a ratio of a magnitude of a rear-wheel braking force distributed to the rear wheel to a magnitude of a front-wheel braking force distributed to the front wheel (construed as braking bias),
wherein the processor is further configured to: calculate a wear amount of each of the plurality of brake pads (WF1,WF2,WR1,WR2, cols 5 and 7); and
determine the second braking distribution ratio based on the wear amount of each of the plurality of brake pads (6 l 65 – col 7 l 10 “processed in external wear averaging circuitry to generate a wear ratio signal arranged to adjust the F/R ratio so as to direct a braking bias within preset limits to the axle which has the thickest lining remaining .”)(at least all figs and paras).
2. The electro-mechanical brake of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
compare a first wear amount of the brake pad mounted on the front wheel with a second wear amount of the brake pad mounted on the rear wheel;
determine a first value higher than the first braking distribution ratio as the second braking distribution ratio when the first wear amount is smaller than the second wear amount; and
determine a second value smaller than the first braking distribution ratio as the second braking distribution ratio when the first wear amount is larger than the second wear amount (all claim 2 limitations taught per col 6 l 65 – col 7 l 10 “processed in external wear averaging circuitry to generate a wear ratio signal arranged to adjust the F/R ratio so as to direct a braking bias within preset limits to the axle which has the thickest lining remaining .”).
3. The electro-mechanical brake of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to determine the second braking distribution ratio depending on a magnitude of a required braking force (construed as deceleration demand, see fig 3).
4. The electro-mechanical brake of claim 3, wherein the processor is further configured to determine the second braking distribution ratio so that a braking force is generated only for one of (Markush) the front wheel and the rear wheel when the magnitude of the required braking force is equal to or smaller than that of a first required braking force (equal between points 0 and A, and not corrected with second ratio until above 0.2 g, col 4 ll 19-40).
5. The electro-mechanical brake of claim 3, wherein the processor is further configured to determine a value higher than the first braking distribution ratio as the second braking distribution ratio when a first wear amount of the brake pad mounted on the front wheel is smaller than a second wear amount of the brake pad mounted on the rear wheel, the second braking distribution ratio being determined to be a smaller value as the required braking force increases (equal wear resulting in higher braking force to less worn brakes whether front or rear).
6. The electro-mechanical brake of claim 5, wherein the processor is further configured to determine the second braking distribution ratio so that a braking force is generated only for the front wheel when the magnitude of the required braking force is equal to or smaller than that of a first required braking force (equal between points 0 and A, and not corrected with second ratio until above 0.2 g, col 4 ll 19-40).
In Re 9,10, the method of claims 9-10 rejected over in re 1-2 as taught by Brearley as described above.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brearley et al US 5,088,042 in view of Maki et al US 2007/01888021.
In Re 7, Brearley teaches maintain the first braking distribution ratio, and correct the first braking distribution ratio to determine the second braking distribution ratio (as mapped in re 1 above over Brearley).
Brearley does not teach however Maki teaches when a speed of the vehicle exceeds a threshold speed, only when the speed of the vehicle is lower than the threshold speed (paras 19,87). Maki further teaches stability increases when vehicle speed taken into account when determining brake force distributions (para 87). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Maki’s speed dependency only to Brearley’s brake force distribution to increase vehicle stability.
In Re 8, Brearley further teaches determine a value higher than the first braking distribution ratio as the second braking distribution ratio when a first wear amount of the brake pad mounted on the front wheel is smaller than a second wear amount of the brake pad mounted on the rear wheel (equal wear resulting in higher braking force to less worn brakes whether front or rear).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL C STAUBACH whose telephone number is (571)272-3748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 AM to 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, 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.
/CARL C STAUBACH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747