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 Objections
Claims 4 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 4 recites “a first electric caliper a left wheel,” which appears to omit the word “on” and should read “a first electric caliper on a left wheel”; claim 8 recites “further comprises,” which is grammatically incorrect and should read “further comprising”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 7-9 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.
Claim 7 recites “the hydraulic caliper of a left wheel of the first wheels” and “the hydraulic caliper of a right wheel of the first wheels”, while claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, recites “a hydraulic caliper mounted on a first wheel” in the singular. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the first wheels”, and it is unclear whether the claimed apparatus requires a single hydraulic caliper on a single first wheel or hydraulic calipers on left and right wheels of a plurality of first wheels. For the purposes of examination, “the first wheels” is construed as the set of wheels carrying hydraulic calipers, on the axle opposite the electric caliper. Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending claim 1 to provide antecedent basis in the plural, e.g. “a hydraulic caliper mounted on each of first wheels different from a second wheel on which the electric caliper is installed”.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“data collection module” in claims 1 and 10 (corresponds to a sensor module or an in-vehicle network communication interface that collects sensor values, and equivalents)
“hydraulic control module” in claims 1 and 10 (corresponds to the disclosed hydraulic circuit of a reservoir, TCV valves, inlet valves, outlet valves, ACV valves, hydraulic pumps and a pump drive motor, and equivalents)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goto et al. (US PG Pub 2020/0223408)
Goto discloses:
Claim 1
A hybrid electro-mechanical brake apparatus comprising: a pedal simulator configured to simulate a depression state of a brake pedal (stroke simulator 205, paragraph [0025]);
a data collection module configured to collect vehicle information (wheel speed, acceleration, yaw rate and steering angle sensors, paragraph [0031]);
a wheel controller configured to drive an electric caliper mounted on one of front and rear wheels of a vehicle to generate braking force (rear ECU 41 and sub ECUs 42 driving rear electric calipers, paragraphs [0027]-[0029]);
a hydraulic control module configured to control a flow path to provide braking pressure to a hydraulic caliper mounted on a first wheel different from a second wheel on which the electric caliper is installed, based on the depression state of the pedal simulator (pump and valves pressurizing front wheel cylinders, paragraphs [0021], [0022] and [0041]); and
a processor operatively coupled to the pedal simulator, the data collection module, the wheel controller, and the hydraulic control module (front ECU 40, paragraphs [0024], [0025] and [0032]),
wherein the processor is configured to determine a vehicle posture based on the vehicle information collected from the data collection module (paragraph [0036] and [0043]),
drive the hydraulic control module and the wheel controller to perform posture control (paragraphs [0043] and [0045]), and
drive the wheel controller and the hydraulic control module according to braking conditions to generate the braking force (paragraphs [0041], [0043] and [0045]).
Claim 2
The hybrid electro-mechanical brake apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor and the wheel controller are connected based on Vehicle CAN communication (in-vehicle communication network CAN 610, paragraphs [0032] and [0055]).
Claim 3
The hybrid electro-mechanical brake apparatus of claim 1, wherein the data collection module collects the vehicle information from a vehicle control device based on Vehicle CAN communication (steering angle information acquired from ECU 43 via Can 610, paragraph [0032]).
Claim 4
The hybrid electro-mechanical brake apparatus of claim 1, wherein the wheel controller includes: a left wheel controller configured to drive a first electric caliper on a left wheel; and a right wheel controller configured to drive a second electric caliper on a right wheel (sub ECU 42 mounted on each of the electric brake mechanisms, paragraphs [0027]-[0029).
Claim 6
The hybrid electro-mechanical brake apparatus of claim 1, wherein the pedal simulator is a wet-type pedal simulator (brake fluid introduced into stroke simulator 205, paragraph [0025]).
Claim 10
A control method of a hybrid electro-mechanical brake apparatus, comprising: receiving, by a processor, vehicle information from a data collection module (paragraphs [0024], [0033] and [0034]);
determining, by the processor, a posture of a vehicle based on the vehicle information received from the data collection module (paragraph [0043]),
driving, by the processor, a hydraulic control module and a wheel controller to perform posture control (paragraphs [0043] and [0045]); and
driving, by the processor, the wheel controller and the hydraulic control module according to braking conditions based on the vehicle information to generate braking force (paragraphs [0041], [0043] and [0045]).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Linhoff (US 2011/0168502).
Claim 5
Goto discloses the hybrid electro-mechanical brake apparatus of claim 4, wherein the left wheel controller and the right wheel controller drive the first electric caliper and the second electric caliper (paragraphs [0027]-[0029])
Goto does not disclose a hybrid electro-mechanical brake apparatus wherein the left wheel controller and the right wheel controller independently drive the first electric caliper and the second electric caliper by receiving an electronic parking brake (EPB) signal and a pedal signal of the brake pedal.
However, Linhoff discloses left and right wheel controllers that independently drive electric calipers by receiving an electronic parking brake (EPB) signal and a pedal signal of the brake pedal (paragraphs [0046], [0047] and [0056])
Therefore it would have been obvious to modify the brake apparatus disclosed by Goto with the direct parking brake switch and pedal signal routing to the wheel controllers disclosed by Linhoff in order to permit autonomous braking despite loss of communication (Linhoff, paragraph [0056])
The hybrid electro-mechanical brake apparatus of claim 4, wherein the left wheel controller and the right wheel controller independently drive the first electric caliper and the second electric caliper by receiving an electronic parking brake (EPB) signal and a pedal signal of the brake pedal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIZO BINDA VILAKAZI whose telephone number is (571)270-3926. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm.
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.
/SIZO B VILAKAZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights