DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed 05/11/26 has been entered. Claims 1-11 are still pending. Despite the claim amendments and Applicant’s arguments, the previous 112 and 103 rejections are maintained as detailed below.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph [0013] refers to a “pressure unit” but this is not mentioned in the Detailed Description. It is unclear what this element is, or if it is a typographical error for the --pressing unit--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “pressure unit” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-11 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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected because claim 1 recites a clutch unit “…configured to transmit rotational driving force to the pressure unit to the gear unit…” See clam 1, lines 10-12. It is unclear whether this force is input to the pressure unit, or the gear unit, or from the gear unit to the pressure unit. Given that Figure 2 depicts the clutch unit (400) being directly connected to the gear unit (300), and the gear unit is connected to the pressing unit (200), what does it mean for the gear unit to input rotation “to the pressure unit to the gear unit?” Furthermore, what is this “pressure unit?” It lacks sufficient antecedent basis, and it is unclear if this is a typographical error for the --pressing unit-- or not. Paragraph [0013] of the specification refers to the “pressure unit,” which adds to this confusion.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Cao in view of Song
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2009/0194385) in view of Song (CN 107965536). Cao is directed to a positive-fit freewheel mechanism. See Abstract. Song is directed to a floating clamp disc type brake. See Abstract.
Claim 1: Cao discloses an automotive electro-mechanical brake apparatus [Fig. 2] comprising: a clamping unit (24), to press a disc (23) through a friction pad (22, 25) by moving rearward in braking; a pressing unit (28) accommodated in the clamping unit, selectively moving forward or rearward when rotation is input thereto, and configured to move forward, press the disc through the friction pad, and guide rearward movement of the clamping unit in the braking; a gear unit (27) engaged with the pressing unit; and a clutch unit (1, 13) [see Fig. 1] connected to the gear unit, configured to transmit rotational driving force for inputting the rotation to the pressure unit to the gear unit, and configured to prevent displacement against reverse rotation input from the gear unit in driving [see para. 0002].
Cao discloses all the limitations of this claim except for the clamping unit moving along “guide rods” of a “torque member.” Like Cao, Song is directed to a floating disc brake, and the clamping unit (1) move forward and rearward along the torque member (5), which includes a guide rod (6). See Figs. 1, 2. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention for the Cao caliper to move along a torque member because this is a floating-type disc brake, which typically moves along some type of guide rod(s) such that it can shift into and out of a braking position. The specifics of this structure are not depicted in Cao, but this type of structure is commonly employed for floating disc brakes.
Claim 2: Song discloses that the clamping unit includes: a clamper body (1) coupled to guide rods (6) of the torque member, accommodating the pressing unit (8) therein, and configured to be moved forward and rearward by the pressing unit; a clamper rod (3) slidably coupled to the torque member and configured to move in a movement direction of the clamper body together with the clamper body; and a clamper (2) connected to an end portion of the clamper rod with the friction pad (9) mounted on the clamper and configured to guide the clamper rod so that the disc (4) is pressed by the friction pad when the clamper rod is moved rearward in the braking. See Fig. 1. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to use multiple guide rods to provide additional stability for the caliper system.
Claim 3: Song discloses that the clamping unit further includes an elastic member (7) disposed between the clamper body and the clamper rod and configured to be compressed by the clamper body and the clamper rod so that the clamper rod is selectively pressed when the clamper body is moved rearward thereof. See Fig. 1.
Claim 5: Cao discloses that the pressing unit includes: a lead nut (29) disposed to face the friction pad; a screw (30), a first end portion of which is inserted and thread-fastened in the lead nut; and a movement guide member (left portion of 24) coupled to a second end portion of the screw, gear-engaged with the gear unit, and configured to move forward the lead nut so that the friction pad is selectively pressed by the lead nut and the disc is pressed by the friction pad when rotation for the braking is input to the movement guide member. See Fig. 2.
Claim 6: Cao discloses that the pressing unit further includes a spring (32) positioned in a hollow portion of the clamping unit and configured to assist a force for pressing the friction pad by providing elasticity to the friction pad when the lead nut is moved forward thereof. See Fig. 2.
Claim 7: Cao discloses that the clutch unit includes: a housing (2); a cover positioned at an end portion of the housing; an external shaft (14) at least partially positioned in the housing and including an end portion connected to the gear unit through the housing; a plurality of lockers (16) positioned in the housing to surround the external shaft; and an input shaft (31) connected to a control motor (26) and including a first end portion inserted in openings of the lockers and a second end portion connected to the control motor through the cover, and wherein the external shaft is restricted by the lockers so that the external shaft and the lockers are rotated in a rotation direction of the input shaft. See Figs. 1, 2.
Claim 8: Cao discloses that the first end portion of the input shaft includes a plurality of rotation transmission portions slidably engaged to each corresponding opening of the lockers. See Figs. 1, 2.
Claim 9: Cao discloses that the clutch unit further includes: a steel member positioned on an internal surface of the housing; and a magnetic member (3) positioned on an external surface, which faces the steel member. See para. 0007. The use of “steel” would be obvious to one skilled in the art since the material choice is a design consideration based on cost/availability. Steel is readily available and relatively inexpensive.
Claim 10: Cao discloses that the magnetic members on the lockers are positioned adjacent to the steel member when rotation force of the input shaft is removed from the input shaft. See Figs. 1, 2.
Claim 11: Cao discloses that the clutch unit further includes a braking portion positioned adjacent to the steel member and configured to selectively come in contact with the lockers, and wherein external surfaces of the lockers come in contact with the braking portion when the magnetic members are positioned adjacent to the steel member. See Figs. 1, 2.
Cao in view of Song and Chen
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao in view of Song and Chen (CN 11204988). Chen is directed to a fixed brake caliper of a vehicle disc brake. See Abstract.
Claim 4: Cao and Song are relied upon as in claims 1-3 above, but do not disclose the use of an LVDT sensor. Chen discloses an automotive electro-mechanical brake apparatus including a Linear Variable Differential Transformer sensor (2) configured to measure an amount of pressing of the friction pad by the pressing unit. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use a LVDT sensor because this measures the force of the brake system, which can be tuned accordingly by the user to ensure that desired braking is achieved. Displacement can be measured in a number of ways, and using the distance change of the elastic member is one intuitive way to do so to determine the degree of pressing force.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant states that the section 112 indefiniteness issues have been rectified, seemingly by just eliminating the phrase “…for inputting the rotation…” but this limitation is still very unclear. See Remarks, page 5. The phrase “pressure unit” lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear what this is, or if it is a typographical error. The language appears in the specification though, so that adds to the confusion. See Application, at para. 00013. In addition, even if the “pressure unit” were properly defined, the limitation that the clutch unit is “configured to transmit rotation driving force to the pressure unit to the gear unit” is unclear. Does it transmit the force to both units, or one unit via another unit, or something else?
Second, Applicant traverses the 103 rejection because the teaching reference Song’s guide rod 6 “does not correspond to the guide rod of the presently claimed invention.” See Remarks, page 6. Specifically, Applicant states that the Song guide rod does not “guide movement of the friction piece 9 intended for pressing the other side of the brake disk 4.” See Remarks, page 6 (citing to annotated Fig. 1). In response, this alleged deficiency is not actually recited in the claim language, thus Applicant’s argument is misplaced. Song properly shows a clamping unit (1) coupled to guide rods (6) of torque member (5) such that the unit can move forward/backward and achieves the function of pressing the disc (4) through a friction pad by moving rearward. See Fig. 1. There is no requirement that the clamping unit (or torque member) “guide movement of the friction [pad],” as Applicant contends. Since this feature does not appear in the claim itself, it need not be addressed. For this reason, the rejection is maintained.
Separately, the section 112 indefiniteness issues must be resolved for proper examination of this application, should Applicant choose to continue prosecution of the application.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 VISHAL R SAHNI whose telephone number is (571)270-3838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm PST.
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.
VISHAL SAHNI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/VISHAL R SAHNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 May 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights