DETAILED ACTION
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3,5-7,9-13,15-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knop 12,485,865 in view of DE 102006029678 A1.
Regarding claims 1,10,11 Knop ‘865 shows in figures 1 and 2:
A screw-type linear actuator comprising: a support structure 10,16; a screw shaft 34,38,40 that is axially stationary with respect to the support structure but rotatably drivable; a nut 42 mounted on the screw shaft 34,38,40 such that rotation of the screw shaft causes axial movement of the nut 42 along the screw shaft; the screw shaft defining a first annular contact surface 76 (capable of) having a spherical profile with a first radius R2 (see figure 2); a thrust flange 73 located on the screw shaft for rotation with the screw shaft, the thrust flange 73 having a second annular contact surface 74 having a spherical profile with a second radius R1 (capable of being) greater than the first radius R2, the first annular contact surface 76 engaging the second annular contact surface 74.
Lacking in Knop is a specific description that the first annular contact surface 76 on the screw shaft 34,38,40 is ‘spherical’ and that the second radius R1 is greater than the first radius R2.
However in col 5 lines 4-23 Knop states:
In particular, the complementary contact surface on the transitional section can be of convex or concave shape.
(33) One of the two contact surfaces, that is to say either the spherical bearing contact surface or the complementary contact surface of the transitional section, can be of convex shape, while the other of the two contact surfaces can be of concave shape.
(34) The spherical bearing contact surface can have a first radius of curvature and the complementary contact surface of the transitional section has a second radius of curvature. The first radius of curvature and the second radius of curvature can be different. This leads to line contact (circular line) between the complementary contact surface and the bearing contact surface, in particular in the case where no force is applied. When the application force is generated and the reaction forces therefore occur, starting from the line contact, surface contact is formed between the contact surfaces as the force increases owing to elastic flattening of the surfaces. The contact surfaces are thus in close contact. In this way, it is possible to ensure that the centering effect is more pronounced as the force increases.
The reference to DE ‘678 is relied upon to show two mating sections 9,10 on a sealing element 6,7 between two drive shafts. The mating sections 9,10 of the sealing element are described as being ‘spherical convex’ 9 and ‘spherical concave’ 10.
Given the statements in Knop above one having ordinary skill in the mechanical arts before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have also formed the first annular contact surface 76 as spherical for the reasons stated above in Knop and as also taught by DE ‘678 at 9,10.
Further to have made the first radius R2 larger than the second radius R1 also would have been obvious for the reasons above.
Regarding claim 2 these limitations are considered to be met in light of the explanation above.
Regarding claims 3,10,15-17 Knop also states in col 5 lines 24-39:
At least a first centre of the first or the second radius of curvature can have a radial offset relative to the respective rotation axis (spindle bearing or spindle). The radial offset increases the diameter of the circular line which describes the contact between the spherical bearing contact surface and the complementary contact surface of the transitional section, relative to the rotation axis of the spindle. In addition, the contact angle between the contact surfaces is also increased. An increase in the contact angle and the diameter of the circular curve reduce the contact pressure in the contact zone. Wear can thereby be reduced.
(36) As an option, both centres of the first and the second radius of curvature can also have a radial offset relative to the rotation axis of the spindle. In this way, the circular line which describes the contact can be additionally adapted as required.
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinary skilled worker in the art to have provided the second radius R1 with a second center point offset from the longitudinal center axis of the screw shaft for the reasons above.
Regarding claim 5 note the bearing at 80.
Regarding claims 6,12,18 note the bearing disc at 82.
Regarding claims 7,13,19 note the balls 48 and ball tracks at 50.
Regarding claim 9 note the brake piston at 52.
Regarding claims 20-22 in light of the explanations above note that the thrust flange 73 is therefore capable of a wobble motion with respect to the screw shaft 34,38,40.
Claim(s) 8,14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knop ‘865/DE ‘678 as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Zinnercker U.S. 2020/0200245.
Regarding claims 8,14 Knop ‘865/DE ‘678 lacks showing a 'non-recirculating' type of ball screw assembly.
However such ball screw assemblies are known in the art as taught by Zinnecker in figures 2 and 3 and as discussed in para 0014.
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have used a ball screw assembly of the type shown by Zinnecker in the device of Knop ‘865/DE ‘678 simply dependent upon the vehicle and or application of the brake device since this would merely amount to the substitution of roughly equivalent parts and may offer a simpler/smaller more compact design.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3,5-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7123. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 A.M.-7:00P.M..
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, Rob 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
6/9/26
Prosecution Insights