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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the office action mailed 05/26/2026, Applicant Cancelled Claims 1-8 and 10; amended Claims 9, 11, 13, 15, and added Claims 18-20. Claims 9, and 11-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments, see page 12, filed 08/17/2026, with respect to claim/specification objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments. The objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see page 12, filed 08/17/2026 with respect to Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, with respect to Applicants’ argument “Applicant's Specification at paragraph [0029] recites "each of the electric brakes 81 to 84 converts the torque output by the motor 60 into linear force by the linear motion mechanism 85 and generates a braking force to press against the corresponding wheel 91 to 94." Therefore, Applicant respectfully asserts that Applicant's Specification supports the recited feature(s). Further, the disc-brake implementation disclosed in paragraph [0030] is one disclosed example of the friction mechanism, but the claims are not limited to that particular structure. That is, the claims do not require any particular brake structure, such as a disc brake or a drum brake. Therefore, even if the disk brake type alone is explicitly disclosed, Applicant's Specification reasonably conveys possession of the claimed subject matter, which is directed to the recited electric-brake operation rather than to any particular friction-brake structure.”; Examiner respectfully disagrees. A cursory reading of paragraph 0029, when considered within the context of the overall written description including paragraphs 0003, 0012, 0030; and Figures 1-2 would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ filing to understand that the only disclosed embodiment of the brake device, which requires “linear motor mechanism 85” as pointed out by applicants’ arguments, is that which is illustrated in Fig. 2. As previously indicated, with respect to Claim 1, the contents of which are now incorporated into Claim 9, “a plurality of electric brakes that is provided on each wheel… press corresponding wheels to generate braking force...a load sensor configured to detect an actual load which is a braking load actually applied to the wheel…”. the overall disclosure indicates a “lone embodiment of the invention comprises a brake device configured to press corresponding ‘discs’ or ‘disks’ corresponding to each wheel. As a result, it brings into question whether or not applicant’s originally filed disclosure and figures provides adequate written description support for claiming an embodiment wherein the brake device is configured to press on and/or apply load to a “wheel” as-claimed.
MPEP2163(3)(a)(ii) states “The Federal Circuit has explained that a specification cannot always support expansive claim language and satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 "merely by clearly describing one embodiment of the thing claimed." LizardTech v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1346, 76 USPQ2d 1731, 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The issue is whether a person skilled in the art would understand inventor to have invented, and been in possession of, the invention as broadly claimed. In LizardTech, claims to a generic method of making a seamless discrete wavelet transformation (DWT) were held invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the specification taught only one particular method for making a seamless DWT and there was no evidence that the specification contemplated a more generic method.”
In this instance, a person skilled in the art would not understand the inventor to have invented, and been in possession of, the invention as broadly claimed. Claims 11-17 are deficient for the reason(s) presented above.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-19, filed 08/17/2026, with respect to rejections of Claims 9, and 11-17 under 35 U.S.C §102a1 as being anticipated by U.S. 20150081186A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments. The rejections have been withdrawn.
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.
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 9 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 9 recites: “a plurality of electric brakes that is provided on each wheel… press corresponding wheels to generate braking force...a load sensor configured to detect an actual load which is a braking load actually applied to the wheel…”. However, ¶0012, ¶0030 and Fig. 2 suggest a lone embodiment of the invention comprises a brake device configured to press corresponding ‘discs’ or ‘disks’ corresponding to each wheel. As a result, it brings into question whether or not applicant’s originally filed disclosure and figures provides adequate written description support for claiming an embodiment wherein the brake device is configured to press on and/or apply load to a “wheel” as-claimed.
Applicants specification including paragraphs 0003, 0012, 0029, 0030; and Figures 1-2 would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ filing to understand that the only disclosed embodiment of the brake device, which requires “linear motor mechanism 85” as pointed out by applicants’ arguments filed 08/17/2026, is that which is illustrated in Fig. 2. With respect to Claim 9 which includes limitations comprising “a plurality of electric brakes that is provided on each wheel… press corresponding wheels to generate braking force...a load sensor configured to detect an actual load which is a braking load actually applied to the wheel…” the overall disclosure indicates a “lone embodiment of the invention comprises a brake device configured to press corresponding ‘discs’ or ‘disks’ corresponding to each wheel. As a result, it brings into question whether or not applicant’s originally filed disclosure and figures provides adequate written description support for claiming an embodiment wherein the brake device is configured to press on and/or apply load to a “wheel” as-claimed.
MPEP2163(3)(a)(ii) states “The Federal Circuit has explained that a specification cannot always support expansive claim language and satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 "merely by clearly describing one embodiment of the thing claimed." LizardTech v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1346, 76 USPQ2d 1731, 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The issue is whether a person skilled in the art would understand inventor to have invented, and been in possession of, the invention as broadly claimed. In LizardTech, claims to a generic method of making a seamless discrete wavelet transformation (DWT) were held invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the specification taught only one particular method for making a seamless DWT and there was no evidence that the specification contemplated a more generic method.”
In this instance, a person skilled in the art would not understand the inventor to have invented, and been in possession of, the invention as broadly claimed.
Claims 11-17 recite similar subject matter and are deficient for the reason(s) presented above with respect to Claim 9.
Indicated Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected respective base claims 9, 11, and 13, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Rewriting Claims 18-20 in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims would resolve the 112a rejections of record as indicated above. Additionally, the prior art of record, whether considered separately or in combination fails to explicitly teach or suggest each and every limitation of the claim(s) 18-20 when considered as whole with the remaining limitation(s) of the base claim and/or intervening claim(s).
Conclusion
This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted. Please note that the Office also offers initiatives that are available to applicants after the close of prosecution. See https://www.uspto.gov/patents/initiatives/uspto-patent-applications-iniatives-timeline for more information.
General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. It also includes information on pro bono (free) legal services and advice available for those who are under-resourced and considering an appeal at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/free-legal-assistance. The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees.
If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance.
If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE.
The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final reply that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b).
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Masuda (U.S. 20160129895A1) discloses “This invention relates to an electric brake control system for controlling the braking generated by electric brake devices each mounted to one of a plurality of wheels of a vehicle.” (¶0001)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN R KIRBY whose telephone number is (571)270-3665. The examiner can normally be reached Telework: M-F, 9a-5p.
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 571-272-1196. 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.
/BRIAN R KIRBY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LINDSAY M LOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights