DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 01/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 14-18, 23-29 and 34-38 remain pending in the application. Applicant' s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 10/27/2025.
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.
Claims 16-18 and 23-24 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.
Claim 16 lines 2-6 recite the limitation “the bracing element is at least one of a spring or an elastic rubber element, in a housing or on elements of the actuating mechanism, and in contact with at least one of the transmission element or the actuating element, the contact being at least one of directly and via intermediate elements”. It is unclear which limitations are considered part of the “at least one of” limitation. For example, is the bracing element at least one of (1) a spring or (2) an elastic element, and the remaining limitations are required; or is the bracing element at least one of (1) a spring or an elastic rubber element, (2) in a housing or on elements of the actuating mechanism, and (3) in contact with at least one of the transmission element or the actuating element, the contact being at least one of directly and via intermediate elements.
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 14-18, 25-29 and 34-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans (US 7211971 B2) in view of Collier-Hallman (US 6949901 B1).
Regarding claim 14, Evans discloses an actuating mechanism (see Fig. 3; 10), comprising: a transmission element (see Fig. 4; 36) configured to be displaced parallel to a transmission direction (up/down direction in Fig. 3); an actuating element (see Fig. 3; 20) configured to displace the transmission element in the transmission direction in response to an actuating movement of the actuating element (see column 3, lines 58-60; “Rotation of the driven shaft 20 in turn axially displaces the washer 36 along the driven shaft 20”); a conversion mechanism (external threads of 20 and internal threads of 36) between the transmission element and the actuating element (see column 3 lines 41-43; “A drive washer 36 includes an internally threaded throughbore 38 which is threadably mounted to the driven shaft 20), the conversion mechanism being configured to convert the actuating movement of the actuating element into displacement of the transmission element in the transmission direction (see column 3, lines 58-60; “Rotation of the driven shaft 20 in turn axially displaces the washer 36 along the driven shaft 20”); a bracing element (see Fig. 4; 44) configured to introduce a prestress at least into the conversion mechanism (see column 3, lines 49-51; “A compression spring 44 in a state of compression is disposed between the washer 36 and a closed end 46 of the plunger 28) in a load-free state of the conversion mechanism (according to paragraph [0002] of the instant application, the load-free state is when the actuating element is not carrying out an actuating movement. Therefore, the load-free state of Evans is when driven shaft 20 is not carrying out an actuating movement) such that backlash in the actuating mechanism is reduced, wherein the prestress introduces a base loading into the conversion mechanism holding the transmission element and the actuating element in contact with one another (see column 3, lines 49-51; “A compression spring 44 in a state of compression is disposed between the washer 36 and a closed end 46 of the plunger 28. Therefore, since the spring 44 is in compression, a force is applied to washer 36. This force is transferred to the internal threads of 36 which are pressed into contact with the external threads of 20. The contact force between the internal threads of 36 and the external threads of 20 reduces backlash between the two elements); and a drive apparatus (see Fig. 3; 14) configured to move the actuating element in order to carry out the actuating movement (see Fig. 4; via 26), wherein the drive apparatus comprises an electric motor (see column 3 lines 63-64; “(see column 3, line 10; “An electric motor 14”). Evans fails to disclose a reluctance torque applied by the electric motor. However, Collier-Hallman teaches a reluctance torque applied by the electric motor (see column 4 lines 1-3; “the motor 60 could comprise other types of electrical motors, such as a switched-reluctance motor”; note that switched-reluctance motors inherently apply a reluctance torque to align the poles of the stator and rotor). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Evans with a switched-reluctance motor, as taught by Collier-Hallman, to provide a reliable and low-cost variable-speed drive comprising low rotor inertia and high torque/inertia ratio; to provide an electric motor which eliminates winding losses in the stator because there is no windings in the rotor side; to provide an electric motor with a rigid structure and absence of permanent magnets and rotor windings; to provide an electric motor that can be used in extremely high speed application and the maximum possible rotor temperature is high, since there are no permanent magnets and rotor windings. As a result of the combination, the following limitations would necessarily result: the drive apparatus (Collier-Hallman, switched-reluctance motor) is configured to support the prestress (Evans, via 44) using a holding torque (Collier-Hallman, inherent holding torque of a switched-reluctance motor) in the load-free state of the conversion mechanism (Evans, external threads of 20 and internal threads of 36), wherein the holding torque supporting the prestress in the load-free state comprises a reluctance torque applied by the electric motor (Collier-Hallman, inherent reluctance torque of a switched-reluctance motor).
Regarding claim 15, Evans discloses the bracing element (44) is configured to apply the prestress to the transmission element (36).
Regarding claim 16, Evans discloses the bracing element (44) is at least one of a spring or an elastic rubber element (see column 3 line 51; “spring 44”), in a housing (see Fig. 3; 12) or on elements of the actuating mechanism, and in contact with at least one of the transmission element (36) or the actuating element, the contact being at least one of directly and via intermediate elements (see Fig. 3, wherein 44 is directly contacting 36).
Regarding claim 17, Evans discloses the conversion mechanism (external threads of 20 and internal threads of 36) is configured to convert a rotational movement of the actuating element (20) into the displacement of the transmission element (36) in the transmission direction (up/down direction in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 18, Evans discloses the conversion mechanism (external threads of 20 and internal threads of 36) includes a toothing system, a ball screw drive, a transmission thread, a spindle drive, or a worm thread (transmission thread between 20 and 36).
Regarding claim 25, Evans discloses a clutch actuator, comprising: an actuating mechanism (see Fig. 3; 10) configured to actuate a clutch (see column 4, lines 5-9; “the linear actuator 10 may be utilized in any application requiring a linear actuator, e.g. a vehicle hood release, a vehicle gas cap release, a vehicle trunk release, etc. as well as non-automotive applications such as security systems”. Therefore, the actuator of Evans is inherently capable of actuating a clutch), the actuator mechanism having a transmission element (see Fig. 4; 36) configured to be displaced parallel to a transmission direction (up/down direction in Fig. 3); an actuating element (see Fig. 3; 20) configured to displace the transmission element in the transmission direction in response to an actuating movement of the actuating element (see column 3, lines 58-60; “Rotation of the driven shaft 20 in turn axially displaces the washer 36 along the driven shaft 20”); a conversion mechanism (external threads of 20 and internal threads of 36) between the transmission element and the actuating element (see column 3 lines 41-43; “A drive washer 36 includes an internally threaded throughbore 38 which is threadably mounted to the driven shaft 20), the conversion mechanism being configured to convert the actuating movement of the actuating element into displacement of the transmission element in the transmission direction (see column 3, lines 58-60; “Rotation of the driven shaft 20 in turn axially displaces the washer 36 along the driven shaft 20”); a bracing element (see Fig. 4; 44) configured to introduce a prestress at least into the conversion mechanism (see column 3, lines 49-51; “A compression spring 44 in a state of compression is disposed between the washer 36 and a closed end 46 of the plunger 28) in a load-free state of the conversion mechanism (according to paragraph [0002] of the instant application, the load-free state is when the actuating element is not carrying out an actuating movement. Therefore, the load-free state of Evans is when driven shaft 20 is not carrying out an actuating movement) such that backlash in the actuating mechanism is reduced, wherein the prestress introduces a base loading into the conversion mechanism holding the transmission element and the actuating element in contact with one another (see column 3, lines 49-51; “A compression spring 44 in a state of compression is disposed between the washer 36 and a closed end 46 of the plunger 28. Therefore, since the spring 44 is in compression, a force is applied to washer 36. This force is transferred to the internal threads of 36 which are pressed into contact with the external threads of 20. The contact force between the internal threads of 36 and the external threads of 20 reduces backlash between the two elements); and a drive apparatus (see Fig. 3; 14) configured to move the actuating element in order to carry out the actuating movement (see Fig. 4; via 26), wherein the drive apparatus comprises an electric motor (see column 3 lines 63-64; “(see column 3, line 10; “An electric motor 14”). Evans fails to disclose a reluctance torque applied by the electric motor. However, Collier-Hallman teaches a reluctance torque applied by the electric motor (see column 4 lines 1-3; “the motor 60 could comprise other types of electrical motors, such as a switched-reluctance motor”; note that switched-reluctance motors inherently apply a reluctance torque to align the poles of the stator and rotor). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Evans with a switched-reluctance motor, as taught by Collier-Hallman, to provide a reliable and low-cost variable-speed drive comprising low rotor inertia and high torque/inertia ratio; to provide an electric motor which eliminates winding losses in the stator because there is no windings in the rotor side; to provide an electric motor with a rigid structure and absence of permanent magnets and rotor windings; to provide an electric motor that can be used in extremely high speed application and the maximum possible rotor temperature is high, since there are no permanent magnets and rotor windings. As a result of the combination, the following limitations would necessarily result: the drive apparatus (Collier-Hallman, switched-reluctance motor) is configured to support the prestress (Evans, via 44) using a holding torque (Collier-Hallman, inherent holding torque of a switched-reluctance motor) in the load-free state of the conversion mechanism (Evans, external threads of 20 and internal threads of 36), wherein the holding torque supporting the prestress in the load-free state comprises a reluctance torque applied by the electric motor (Collier-Hallman, inherent reluctance torque of a switched-reluctance motor).
Regarding claim 26, Evans discloses a transmission actuator, comprising: an actuating mechanism (see Fig. 3; 10) configured to actuate a transmission (see column 4, lines 5-9; “the linear actuator 10 may be utilized in any application requiring a linear actuator, e.g. a vehicle hood release, a vehicle gas cap release, a vehicle trunk release, etc. as well as non-automotive applications such as security systems”. Therefore, the actuator of Evans is inherently capable of actuating a transmission), the actuator mechanism having a transmission element (see Fig. 4; 36) configured to be displaced parallel to a transmission direction (up/down direction in Fig. 3); an actuating element (see Fig. 3; 20) configured to displace the transmission element in the transmission direction in response to an actuating movement of the actuating element (see column 3, lines 58-60; “Rotation of the driven shaft 20 in turn axially displaces the washer 36 along the driven shaft 20”); a conversion mechanism (external threads of 20 and internal threads of 36) between the transmission element and the actuating element (see column 3 lines 41-43; “A drive washer 36 includes an internally threaded throughbore 38 which is threadably mounted to the driven shaft 20), the conversion mechanism being configured to convert the actuating movement of the actuating element into displacement of the transmission element in the transmission direction (see column 3, lines 58-60; “Rotation of the driven shaft 20 in turn axially displaces the washer 36 along the driven shaft 20”); a bracing element (see Fig. 4; 44) configured to introduce a prestress at least into the conversion mechanism (see column 3, lines 49-51; “A compression spring 44 in a state of compression is disposed between the washer 36 and a closed end 46 of the plunger 28) in a load-free state of the conversion mechanism (according to paragraph [0002] of the instant application, the load-free state is when the actuating element is not carrying out an actuating movement. Therefore, the load-free state of Evans is when driven shaft 20 is not carrying out an actuating movement) such that backlash in the actuating mechanism is reduced, wherein the prestress introduces a base loading into the conversion mechanism holding the transmission element and the actuating element in contact with one another (see column 3, lines 49-51; “A compression spring 44 in a state of compression is disposed between the washer 36 and a closed end 46 of the plunger 28. Therefore, since the spring 44 is in compression, a force is applied to washer 36. This force is transferred to the internal threads of 36 which are pressed into contact with the external threads of 20. The contact force between the internal threads of 36 and the external threads of 20 reduces backlash between the two elements); and a drive apparatus (see Fig. 3; 14) configured to move the actuating element in order to carry out the actuating movement (see Fig. 4; via 26), wherein the drive apparatus comprises an electric motor (see column 3 lines 63-64; “(see column 3, line 10; “An electric motor 14”). Evans fails to disclose a reluctance torque applied by the electric motor. However, Collier-Hallman teaches a reluctance torque applied by the electric motor (see column 4 lines 1-3; “the motor 60 could comprise other types of electrical motors, such as a switched-reluctance motor”; note that switched-reluctance motors inherently apply a reluctance torque to align the poles of the stator and rotor). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Evans with a switched-reluctance motor, as taught by Collier-Hallman, to provide a reliable and low-cost variable-speed drive comprising low rotor inertia and high torque/inertia ratio; to provide an electric motor which eliminates winding losses in the stator because there is no windings in the rotor side; to provide an electric motor with a rigid structure and absence of permanent magnets and rotor windings; to provide an electric motor that can be used in extremely high speed application and the maximum possible rotor temperature is high, since there are no permanent magnets and rotor windings. As a result of the combination, the following limitations would necessarily result: the drive apparatus (Collier-Hallman, switched-reluctance motor) is configured to support the prestress (Evans, via 44) using a holding torque (Collier-Hallman, inherent holding torque of a switched-reluctance motor) in the load-free state of the conversion mechanism (Evans, external threads of 20 and internal threads of 36), wherein the holding torque supporting the prestress in the load-free state comprises a reluctance torque applied by the electric motor (Collier-Hallman, inherent reluctance torque of a switched-reluctance motor).
Regarding claim 27, Evans discloses the bracing element (44) is configured to apply a force in the transmission direction (up/down direction in Fig. 3) to the transmission element (36).
Regarding claim 28, Evans discloses the bracing element (44) is configured to apply a force in the transmission direction (up/down direction in Fig. 3) to the transmission element (36).
Regarding claim 29, Evans discloses the bracing element (44) is configured to apply a force in the transmission direction (up/down direction in Fig. 3) to the transmission element (36).
Regarding claim 34, Evans discloses the actuating element (20) is rotatable about a first axis (axis of 20) and the transmission element (36) is displaced along a second axis (axis of 36). Evans fails to disclose the second axis is perpendicular to the first axis. However, Collier-Hallman teaches the second axis (see Fig. 2; axis of 80) is perpendicular to the first axis (axis of 76). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Evans with the second axis being perpendicular to the first axis, as taught by Collier-Hallman, to allow for different arrangements of torque transfer between the motor and the transmission element which can accommodate different arrangements and sizing requirements such as width and height requirements. Additionally, it has been held that a rearrangement of parts, which does not modify the operation of the device, is an obvious matter of design choice. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In this instance, rearranging the coaxial axes of the actuating element and the transmission element of Evans to be perpendicular would still allow torque transfer from the motor to the actuating element, and therefore is an obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 35, Evans discloses the actuating element (20) is rotatable about a first axis (axis of 20) and the transmission element (36) is displaced along a second axis (axis of 36). Evans fails to disclose the second axis is perpendicular to the first axis. However, Collier-Hallman teaches the second axis (see Fig. 2; axis of 80) is perpendicular to the first axis (axis of 76). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Evans with the second axis being perpendicular to the first axis, as taught by Collier-Hallman, to allow for different arrangements of torque transfer between the motor and the transmission element which can accommodate different arrangements and sizing requirements such as width and height requirements. Additionally, it has been held that a rearrangement of parts, which does not modify the operation of the device, is an obvious matter of design choice. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In this instance, rearranging the coaxial axes of the actuating element and the transmission element of Evans to be perpendicular would still allow torque transfer from the motor to the actuating element, and therefore is an obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 36, Evans discloses the actuating element (20) is rotatable about a first axis (axis of 20) and the transmission element (36) is displaced along a second axis (axis of 36). Evans fails to disclose the second axis is perpendicular to the first axis. However, Collier-Hallman teaches the second axis (see Fig. 2; axis of 80) is perpendicular to the first axis (axis of 76). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Evans with the second axis being perpendicular to the first axis, as taught by Collier-Hallman, to allow for different arrangements of torque transfer between the motor and the transmission element which can accommodate different arrangements and sizing requirements such as width and height requirements. Additionally, it has been held that a rearrangement of parts, which does not modify the operation of the device, is an obvious matter of design choice. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In this instance, rearranging the coaxial axes of the actuating element and the transmission element of Evans to be perpendicular would still allow torque transfer from the motor to the actuating element, and therefore is an obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 37, the combination of claim 14 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: in the load-free state, the actuating element does not carry out the actuating movement (Evans, the state when driven shaft 20 is not carrying out an actuating movement), but the drive apparatus (Collier-Hallman, switched-reluctance motor) applies the holding torque (Collier-Hallman, inherent holding torque of a switched-reluctance motor) to support the prestress introduced by the bracing element (Evans, 44).
Regarding claim 38, the combination of claim 14 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the holding torque (Collier-Hallman, inherent holding torque of a switched-reluctance motor) applied by the drive apparatus (Collier-Hallman, switched-reluctance motor) in the load-free state of the conversion mechanism (Evans, the state when driven shaft 20 is not carrying out an actuating movement) counteracts the prestress (Evans, column 3, lines 49-51; “A compression spring 44 in a state of compression is disposed between the washer 36 and a closed end 46 of the plunger 28) to introduce the prestress with a defined magnitude constantly into the conversion mechanism (Evans, external threads of 20 and internal threads of 36).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejections that were necessitated by an amendment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH BROWN whose telephone number is (313)446-6568. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 571-357-2384. 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 BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights