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 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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang (WO 2017/034253) in view of Odaira (US 2020/0217379).
Regarding independent claim 1, Hwang discloses an actuator assembly for a vehicle brake (see FIGS. 1, 2; machine translation, page 1, lines 11-12), comprising: a control assembly (110, 160), which can be installed as a separate sub-unit and which comprises a partition panel (160) and a circuit board (111, 113) which is fastened to said partition panel (see FIG. 2), and having a drive assembly (140), which can be installed as a separate sub-unit and which comprises a carrier assembly (141, 150) on which an electric motor (130), a spindle drive (see FIG. 2, output portion of planetary gear carrier) and a gear unit (see FIG. 2, showing pinion gears and planetary gears included in drive assembly (140)) are mounted, which gear unit drivingly couples the electric motor and the spindle drive (see FIG. 2), wherein a driven shaft of the electric motor is aligned substantially perpendicularly to the partition panel and to the circuit board (see FIG. 2); wherein the control assembly and the drive assembly are arranged in a common housing (120, 170).
Hwang does not disclose a single circuit board. Rather, Hwang discloses a first circuit board (111) and a second circuit board (113).
Odaira teaches an actuator assembly for a vehicle brake (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-6), comprising: a control assembly (74, 94), which can be installed as a separate sub-unit (see FIG. 2; ¶ 0024) and which comprises a partition panel (94) and a single circuit board (74) fastened to said partition panel (see FIG. 2; ¶ 0024).
It would have been obvious to replace the two circuit boards o Hwang with a single circuit board comprising all of the control components to reduce the number of components that need to be manufactured and assembled.
Regarding claim 2, Hwang discloses that the housing is manufactured from plastic material, at least in part (see machine translation, page 2, lines 49-51).
Regarding claim 3, Hwang discloses that the housing comprises a substantially shell-shaped housing base part (121) and a housing cover (170) which closes the housing base part (see FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Hwang discloses that a positioning and fastening arrangement for the circuit board is provided on the partition panel (see FIG. 2, partition panel is sized and shaped to receive circuit boards (111, 113).
Regarding claim 6, Hwang discloses that a plug-connector half (117) is integrally provided on the housing (see machine translation, page 4, lines 149-152), wherein the plug-connector half is electrically connected to the circuit board via at least a first electric line (116).
Regarding claim 7, Hwang discloses that the first electric line (116) is integrated in the housing, at least in part (see FIGS. 2, 3; machine translation, page 4, lines 149-152), wherein a portion of the first electric line which is on a circuit board-side extends substantially parallel to the driven shaft of the electric motor (see FIGS. 2, 3).
Regarding claim 10, Hwang discloses that the control assembly comprises a power supply unit for supplying the electric motor with electric energy (see machine translation, page 3, lines 91-92).
Regarding claim 11, Hwang does not disclose that a magnet is arranged on an end of the driven shaft of the electric motor which faces the control assembly, and a sensor, which is associated with the magnet, is positioned on the circuit board such that it is substantially opposite the end of the driven shaft.
Odaira teaches an actuator assembly (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-4) comprising a magnet (184) arranged on an end of a driven shaft of the electric motor (31) which faces a control assembly (74), and a sensor (185), which is associated with the magnet, is positioned on a circuit board (74) such that it is substantially opposite the end of the driven shaft (see FIG. 4).
It would have been obvious to combine the magnet and sensor of Odaira with the actuator of Hwang to provide feedback for accurately controlling the operation of the motor.
Regarding claim 18, Hwang discloses that the control assembly comprises a power supply unit for supplying the electric motor with electric energy (see machine translation, page 3, lines 91-92).
Regarding claim 19, Hwang does not disclose that a magnet is arranged on an end of the driven shaft of the electric motor which faces the control assembly, and a sensor, which is associated with the magnet, is positioned on the circuit board such that it is substantially opposite the end of the driven shaft.
Odaira teaches an actuator assembly (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-4) comprising a magnet (184) arranged on an end of a driven shaft of the electric motor (31) which faces a control assembly (74), and a sensor (185), which is associated with the magnet, is positioned on a circuit board (74) such that it is substantially opposite the end of the driven shaft (see FIG. 4).
It would have been obvious to combine the magnet and sensor of Odaira with the actuator of Hwang to provide feedback for accurately controlling the operation of the motor.
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.
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.
Claims 5 and 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang (WO 2017/034253) and Odaira (US 2020/0217379), as applied to claims 1 and 3, above, and further in view of Kong et al. (US 11,287,002).
Regarding claim 5, Hwang does not disclose retaining ribs for a lubricating medium are arranged on a side of the partition panel which faces the drive assembly.
Kong teaches an actuator assembly (10) for a vehicle brake (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-4) comprising a partition member (210) (see FIG. 2) comprising retaining ribs (see FIG. 2, downwardly extending walls form retaining ribs) for a lubricating medium are arranged on a side of the partition panel which faces the drive assembly (see FIG. 2).
It would have been obvious to provide retaining ribs on the partition panel of Hwang to separate the drive assembly from the remainder of the housing cavity, thereby prevent contaminants from entering and/or exiting the drive assembly. Additionally, the retaining ribs would provide additional structural strength to the partition panel.
Regarding claim 15, Hwang does not disclose retaining ribs for a lubricating medium are arranged on a side of the partition panel which faces the drive assembly.
Kong teaches an actuator assembly (10) for a vehicle brake (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-4) comprising a partition member (210) (see FIG. 2) comprising retaining ribs (see FIG. 2, downwardly extending walls form retaining ribs) for a lubricating medium are arranged on a side of the partition panel which faces the drive assembly (see FIG. 2).
It would have been obvious to provide retaining ribs on the partition panel of Hwang to separate the drive assembly from the remainder of the housing cavity, thereby prevent contaminants from entering and/or exiting the drive assembly. Additionally, the retaining ribs would provide additional structural strength to the partition panel.
Claims 8 and 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang (WO 2017/034253) and Odaira (US 2020/0217379), as applied to claims 1 and 7, above, and further in view of Yasui (US 2019/0023248).
Regarding claim 8, Hwang does not disclose that the electric motor and the circuit board are electrically connected via a second electric line, wherein the second electric line extends substantially parallel to the driven shaft of the electric motor.
Yasui teaches an actuator assembly (see Abstract, FIG. 7) comprising an electric motor (MTR) and a circuit board (KBN) being electrically connected via a second electric line (PMT), wherein the second electric line extends substantially parallel to the driven shaft (SFI) of the electric motor (see FIG. 7).
It would have been obvious to combine the second electric line of Yasui with the device of Hwang to provide a simple way to quickly and securely connect the circuit board electronics to the motor during assembly.
Regarding claim 16, Hwang does not disclose that the electric motor and the circuit board are electrically connected via a second electric line, wherein the second electric line extends substantially parallel to the driven shaft of the electric motor.
Yasui teaches an actuator assembly (see Abstract, FIG. 7) comprising an electric motor (MTR) and a circuit board (KBN) being electrically connected via a second electric line (PMT), wherein the second electric line extends substantially parallel to the driven shaft (SFI) of the electric motor (see FIG. 7).
It would have been obvious to combine the second electric line of Yasui with the device of Hwang to provide a simple way to quickly and securely connect the circuit board electronics to the motor during assembly.
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang (WO 2017/034253) and Odaira (US 2020/0217379), as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Forwerck et al. (US 10,124,778).
Regarding claim 9, Hwang does not disclose that partition member and the circuit board are connected via a potting material, at least in part.
Forwerck teaches a vehicle braking system (see Abstract, FIGS. 1, 2) comprising a partition member and the circuit board are connected via a potting material, at least in part (see col. 3, lines 15-18).
It would have been obvious to use potting material to secure the circuit board to the partition member to securely attach the circuit board to the partition member.
Regarding claim 17, Hwang does not disclose that partition member and the circuit board are connected via a potting material, at least in part.
Forwerck teaches a vehicle braking system (see Abstract, FIGS. 1, 2) comprising a partition member and the circuit board are connected via a potting material, at least in part (see col. 3, lines 15-18).
It would have been obvious to use potting material to secure the circuit board to the partition member to securely attach the circuit board to the partition member.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong et al. (US 11,287,002) in view of Yasui (US 2019/0023248).
Regarding claim 12, Kong discloses a method for manufacturing an actuator assembly (10) for a vehicle brake (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-4), comprising the following steps:
a) providing a substantially shell-shaped housing base part (110),
b) inserting a drive assembly (120, 130, 221, 222, 230, 250, 270, 282, 290) into the housing base part (see FIGS. 2, 3), which drive assembly comprises a carrier assembly (130) on which an electric motor (120), a spindle drive (282) and a gear unit (221, 222, 230, 250, 270) are mounted, which gear unit drivingly couples the electric motor and the spindle drive (see FIGS. 2, 3), c) inserting a partition panel (210); and d) closing the housing base part with a housing cover (200).
Kong does not disclose inserting a control assembly into the housing base part, which control assembly comprises a partition panel and a circuit board fastened to said partition panel, wherein the insertion results in an electrical connection of at least the electric motor and the circuit board.
Yasui teaches a method for manufacturing an actuator assembly (see Abstract, FIG. 7) comprising inserting a control assembly (CSK, KBN) into a housing base part (CAS), which control assembly comprises a partition panel (CSK) and a circuit board (KBN) fastened to said partition panel (see FIG. 7), wherein the insertion results in an electrical connection (PMT) of at least the electric motor and the circuit board (see FIG. 7).
It would have been obvious to combine the inserting a control assembly step of Yasui with the method of Kong to provide an integrated electronic brake caliper that does not require any additional wires or connections during final installation of the brake to the vehicle.
Regarding claim 14, Yasui teaches that the circuit board is electrically connected to the electric motor by forming an electrical press connection or an electrical insulation displacement connection (see Abstract).
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong et al. (US 11,287,002) in view of Yasui (US 2019/0023248), as applied to claim 12, above, and further in view of Kafer et al. (US 2008/0017174).
Regarding claim 13, Yasui teaches a plug-connector half (CNC). Neither Kong nor Yasui discloses a plug-connector half is integrally provided on the housing and the plug-connector half is electrically connected to the circuit board as a result of inserting the control assembly into the housing base part.
Kafer teaches a brake assembly (see Abstract, FIGS. 1, 2) comprising a plug-connector half (11) integrally provided on a housing (14) and the plug-connector half is electrically connected to a circuit board (31) as a result of inserting the control assembly into the housing base part (see FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to combine the plug-connector half configuration of Kafer with the device of Kong and Yasui to provide a simple means for securely and properly connecting the circuit board to the plug-connector half.
Regarding claim 20, Yasui teaches that the circuit board is electrically connected to the electric motor by forming an electrical press connection or an electrical insulation displacement connection (see Abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection noted above.
Regarding the rejection of claims 5 and 15 as being unpatentable in view of Kong, Applicant argues that “Kong does not specify that these retaining ribs are designed or positioned for retaining lubricating medium” and that “[t]he function and arrangement of the ribs in Kong are not described as being for the purpose of maintaining lubricant in the region of the drive assembly components” (see amendment, page 8). The “retaining ribs for a lubricating medium” of the present application are disclosed as axially extending walls that circumferentially surround the gears. Similarly, Kong discloses axially extending walls that circumferentially surround the gears (see FIG. 2). As such, Kong discloses a configuration that is capable of retaining a lubricating medium.
Regarding the rejection of claims 8 and 16 in view of Yasui, Applicant argues that “the Examiner has not provided a sufficient rationale for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Yasui’s second electric line arrangement with Hwang’s actuator assembly” (see amendment, page 9). Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the Office Action provided the rationale that “[i]t would have been obvious to combine the second electric line of Yasui with the device of Hwang to provide a simple way to quickly and securely connect the circuit board electronics to the motor during assembly” (see rejection of claims 8 and 16, above). As shown in Figure 5 of Yasui, the electrical line is an axially extending pin that allows the motor to be connected to the circuit board by simply pressing the circuit board onto the pin (see FIG. 5, ¶ 0007).
Regarding the rejection of claims 9 and 17 in view of Forwerck, Applicant argues that “the references do not address the technical challenges solved by the claimed arrangement, such as protection against vibration, moisture, or environmental influences in the specific context of an actuator assembly for a vehicle brake” (see amendment, page 10). Forwerck, however, teaches that the circuit board can be fixed to a supporting member via a potting material (see col. 3, lines 15-18) to securely attach the circuit board to the supporting member (see col. 3, lines 15-18). These teachings are directly applicable to the brake system of Hwang, which similarly discloses a circuit board attached to a supporting member in a brake system.
Regarding the rejection of claims 11 and 19 in view of Odaira, applicant argues that “Odaira fails to teach or suggest that the sensor is specifically integrated onto a circuit board that is fastened to a partition panel, nor does it describe the magnet as being oriented to face a control assembly in the manner claimed.” Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Odaira discloses that the circuit board (74) is fastened to a partition panel (94) (see ¶ 0024). Furthermore, Odaira clearly discloses that the magnet (184) faces the control assembly (74) (see FIG. 4).
Regarding the rejection of claim 12 over Kong in view of Yasui, Applicant argues that “[t]he references do not address the technical challenges solved by the claimed metho, such as simplifying assembly, reducing manufacturing steps, or achieving reliable electrical connections during insertion” (see amendment, page 12). However, “[i]t is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant” (see MPEP 2144.IV) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). In the present case, the rationale for combining the teachings of Yasui with Kong, it was stated that “[i]t would have been obvious to combine the inserting a control assembly step of Yasui with the method of Kong to provide an integrated electronic brake caliper that does not require any additional wires or connections during final installation of the brake to the vehicle” (see rejection of claim 12, above). Applicant has not rebutted this reasoning for combination.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J LANE whose telephone number is (571)270-5988. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM - 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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at (571)272-7124. 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.
/NICHOLAS J LANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
October 14, 2025