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 action is in reply to the communication filed on . The disposition of claims is as follows:
Pending:
Rejected:
Objected to:
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is hereby made of receipt of the Information Disclosure Statement(s) filed by the Applicant listed below:
June 10, 2025
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the limitation "" in line . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the limitation "" in line . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the limitation "" in lines . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the limitation "" in line . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the limitation "" in lines . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the limitation "" in Lines .
However, this limitation is incomprehensible such that it is impossible to clearly understand the intended scope of the phrase. The examiner is unable to discern the intended scope of this limitation, how the claimed phrases are intended to relate to one another, nor construe this information in light of the instant disclosure.
As set forth in the claim language, the relationship of is unclear.
Specifically, it is unclear .
The Examiner is unable to ascertain what this limitation is intended to encompass. This renders the claim vague and indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant rephrase the claimed limitation / phrase, without introducing any new matter, to more clearly articulate the intended scope of the claim.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the limitation "" in Line .
However, this limitation is incomprehensible such that it is impossible to clearly understand the intended scope of the phrase. The examiner is unable to discern the intended scope of this limitation, how the claimed phrases are intended to relate to one another, nor construe this information in light of the instant disclosure.
As set forth in the claim language, the relationship of is unclear.
Specifically, it is unclear .
The Examiner is unable to ascertain what this limitation is intended to encompass. This renders the claim vague and indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant rephrase the claimed limitation / phrase, without introducing any new matter, to more clearly articulate the intended scope of the claim.
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 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.
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being by (), hereinafter “”.
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
A brake apparatus comprising:
an electronic parking brake (EPB) installed in each rear wheel of a vehicle; See at least ¶¶;
a first parking drive circuit () configured to operate a first EPB motor () of the electronic parking brake; See at least ¶¶;
a second parking drive circuit () configured to operate a second EPB motor () of the electronic parking brake; See at least ¶¶;
a first switch part () provided between the first EPB motor () and the first parking drive circuit () and comprising first and second switches () configured to selectively control an electric current flow between the first parking drive circuit () and the first EPB motor () and an electric current flow between the second parking drive circuit () and the first EPB motor (); See at least ¶¶;
a second switch part () provided between the second EPB motor () and the second parking drive circuit () and comprising third and fourth switches () configured to selectively control an electric current flow between the second parking drive circuit () and the second EPB motor () and an electric current flow between the first parking drive circuit () and the second EPB motor (); See at least ¶¶; and
a control unit () configured to control the first parking drive circuit () and the second parking drive circuit () to operate the first EPB motor () and the second EPB motor (), See at least ¶¶;
wherein when a failure of any one of the first parking drive circuit () and the second parking drive circuit () is identified, the control unit controls the first switch part () or the second switch part () connected to any one parking drive circuit with the identified failure and controls the other parking drive circuit to operate the first EPB motor () and the second EPB motor (). See at least ¶¶;
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
wherein the first switch part is connected to a line extending between the second switch part and the second EPB motor, and the second switch part is connected to a line extending between the first switch part and the first EPB motor. See at least : ¶¶; : Figs 2-3, 5-6 and corresponding description.
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
wherein the first switch part is configured to allow the electric current flow between the first parking drive circuit and the first EPB motor and cut off the electric current flow between the second parking drive circuit and the first EPB motor in a default state, See at least : ¶¶; and
wherein the second switch part is configured to allow the electric current flow between the second parking drive circuit and the second EPB motor and cut off the electric current flow between the first parking drive circuit and the second EPB motor in a default state. See at least : ¶¶;
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
A method of controlling a brake apparatus, the method comprising:
identifying a failure of any one of a first parking drive circuit (), which is configured to operate a first EPB motor () of an electronic parking brake (EPB) installed in each rear wheel of a vehicle, and a second parking drive circuit () configured to operate a second EPB motor (); See at least ¶¶; and
controlling one of a first switch part () or a second switch part (), wherein the controlled switch part is connected to any one parking drive circuit with the identified failure and controlling the other parking drive circuit to operate the first EPB motor () and the second EPB motor () when the failure of any one parking drive circuit is identified, See at least ¶¶;
wherein the first switch part () is provided between the first EPB motor () and the first parking drive circuit (), and comprises first and second switches () configured to selectively control an electric current flow between the first parking drive circuit () and the first EPB motor () and an electric current flow between the first parking drive circuit () and the second EPB motor (), See at least ¶¶; and
wherein a second switch part () is provided between the second EPB motor () and the second parking drive circuit () and comprises third and fourth switches () configured to selectively control an electric current flow between the second parking drive circuit () and the second EPB motor () and an electric current flow between the second parking drive circuit () and the first EPB motor (). See at least ¶¶;
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 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.
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over as applied above in view of (), hereinafter “”.
Regarding Claim ,
fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the control unit comprises:
a first controller configured to control the first parking drive circuit; and
a second controller configured to control the second parking drive circuit.
However, discloses:
control of the first parking drive circuit and second parking drive circuit via a controller. See at least ¶¶;
discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teaches:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of utilizing a separate in order to increase reliability. See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would utilize a separate in to increase reliability. See at least ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Furthermore, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is achieved from such duplication. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B)) (citing In re Harza, 274 F.3d 699 (CCPA 1960).
Applicant has not disclosed that in the does anything more than produce predictable results (e.g. provide ). The mere duplication provided by including in the is not considered to have patentable significance.
Since Applicant has failed to provide persuasive evidence on the record that in the is significant in any way, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to , in order to predictably provide since such a duplication would produce nothing more than predictable results within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B)) (citing In re Harza, 274 F.3d 699 (CCPA 1960) (“It is well settled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include to predictably provide .
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
a first current sensor configured to detect an electric current supplied to the first parking drive circuit from an external power source; and a second current sensor configured to detect an electric current supplied to the second parking drive circuit from the external power source, See at least : ¶¶; ; (BATT; Figs 2-6)
wherein the first controller identifies a failure of the first parking drive circuit on the basis of a signal detected by the first current sensor, and the second controller identifies a failure of the second parking drive circuit on the basis of a signal detected by the second current sensor. See at least : ¶¶; ; (BATT; Figs 2-6); : ¶¶.
Regarding Claim , (as best understood by the examiner
fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the first controller controls the first parking drive circuit to operate the first EPB motor and the second EPB motor in response to the identification of the failure of the second parking drive circuit.
However, discloses:
control of the first parking drive circuit and second parking drive circuit via a controller. See at least ¶¶;
discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teaches:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of utilizing a separate in order to increase reliability. See at least ¶¶;.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would utilize in to increase reliability. See at least ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein when a failure of the second parking drive circuit is identified, the second controller controls the second EPB driving part to switch the second switch part and transmits a signal, which indicates the failure of the second parking drive circuit, to the first controller, and the first controller increases an electric current to be applied to the first parking drive circuit by a selected electric current value in response to the reception of the signal indicating the failure of the second parking drive circuit. See at least : ¶¶;
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the second controller controls the second parking drive circuit to operate the first EPB motor and the second EPB motor in response to the identification of the failure of the first parking drive circuit. See at least : ¶¶;
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the first controller and the second controller identify states thereof, and when a failure of any one of the first controller and the second controller is identified, the other controller controls the parking drive circuit, which corresponds to the other controller, to operate the first EPB motor and the second EPB motor. See at least : ¶¶;
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
wherein the identifying of the failure of any one parking drive circuit comprises identifying, a failure of any one of the first parking drive circuit and the second parking drive circuit on the basis of signals detected by first and second current sensors configured to detect electric currents supplied to the first parking drive circuit and the second parking drive circuit from an external power source. See at least ¶¶; (BATT; Figs 2-6)
fails to explicitly disclose:
by first and second controllers
discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teaches:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of in order to increase reliability. See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of in to increase reliability. See at least ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Furthermore, It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is achieved from such duplication. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B)) (citing In re Harza, 274 F.3d 699 (CCPA 1960).
Applicant has not disclosed that in the does anything more than produce predictable results (e.g. provide ). The mere duplication provided by including in the is not considered to have patentable significance.
Since Applicant has failed to provide persuasive evidence on the record that in the is significant in any way, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to , in order to predictably provide since such a duplication would produce nothing more than predictable results within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B)) (citing In re Harza, 274 F.3d 699 (CCPA 1960) (“It is well settled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include to predictably provide .
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the first switch part is connected to a line configured to connect the second switch part and the second EPB motor, See at least : ¶¶; : Figs 2-3, 5-6 and corresponding description.
wherein the second switch part is connected to a line configured to connect the first switch part and the first EPB motor, See at least : ¶¶; : Figs 2-3, 5-6 and corresponding description.; and
wherein the controlling comprises controlling, by the first controller, the first parking drive circuit to operate the first EPB motor and the second EPB motor in response to the identification of the failure of the second parking drive circuit. See at least : See at least ¶¶;
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the controlling further comprises:
controlling, by the second controller, the second EPB driving part to switch the second switch part when the failure of the second parking drive circuit is identified; See at least : ¶¶ and
transmitting a signal, which indicates the failure of the second parking drive circuit, to the first controller. See at least : ¶¶;
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the controlling further comprises:
increasing, by the first controller, an electric current to be applied to the first parking drive circuit by a selected electric current value in response to the reception of the signal indicating the failure of the second parking drive circuit. See at least : ¶¶;
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the controlling further comprises:
controlling, by the second controller, the second parking drive circuit to operate the first EPB motor and the second EPB motor in response to the identification of the failure of the first parking drive circuit. See at least : ¶¶
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the controlling further comprises:
controlling, by the first controller, the first EPB driving part to switch the first switch part when the failure of the first parking drive circuit is identified; See at least : ¶¶ and
transmitting a signal, which indicates the failure of the first parking drive circuit, to the second controller. See at least : ¶¶;
Regarding Claim (as best understood by the Examiner),
disclose:
identifying, by the first controller and the second controller, states thereof. See at least : ¶¶;
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
further comprising:
controlling the parking drive circuit corresponding to the other controller so that the other controller operates the first EPB motor and the second EPB motor when a failure of any one of the first controller and the second controller is identified. See at least : ¶¶;
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(III)-(IV)
No special definitions are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given the plain meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (See MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01).
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring them to the attention of the Examiner and the prosecution history in the next response.
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
Examiner Interviews
Regular Examiner Interview Requests:
Pursuant to USPTO Guidance, one Examiner interview per round of prosecution is available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call Examiner Reinbold directly at 313-446-6607 (preferred) or 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 on 571-270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Additional Examiner Interview Requests:
If Applicant needs more than one Examiner interview during a single round of prosecution, applicant may request approval for additional examiner interview(s) from Examiner Reinbold’s Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE), Logan Kraft, who can be reached at 571-270-5065.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action 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. Applicant should consider the entirety of identified prior art references as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is noted that any citations to specific pages, paragraph numbers, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references presented and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2123. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A REINBOLD whose telephone number is (313)446-6607. The examiner can normally be reached on MON - FRI: 8AM - 5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft, can be reached on (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 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 http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SCOTT A REINBOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights