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 .
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 “second holder device” as recited in claim 9 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. 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.
Claim 20 is 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.
Regarding claim 20, the phrase “wherein the first coil is beside the electric motor and the second coil is at an output of the motor sub-assembly” is indefinite because it is unclear what is required for the first coil to be “beside” the electric motor and further unclear what is required for the second coil to be “at an output of the motor sub-assembly.” As shown in Figure 2 of the present application, the first coil (38) is spaced apart from the motor (13, 14) and separated from the motor by a lid (44). As such, it is unclear what is meant by being “beside” the electric motor. As further shown in Figure 2, the second coil (39) is spaced apart from the output (2) and separated from the output by a housing and the shuttle. Therefore, it is unclear what is meant by the second coil being at an output of the motor sub-assembly.
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, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klode et al. (US 6,561,321) in view of Evenor et al. (US 2015/0266568).
Regarding claim 1, Klode discloses a motor sub-assembly (see FIG. 2) for an electromechanical brake actuator of an aircraft wheel (note: this claim is only directed toward the motor sub-assembly and does not positively require a brake actuator or an aircraft), the motor sub-assembly comprising: -a casing (47), -a shaft (32) mounted in the casing to rotate about a longitudinal axis of the shaft (see FIG. 2; col. 2, lines 33-34), and an electric motor (30) mounted in the casing and connected to a first end of the shaft in order to drive the shaft in rotation (see FIG. 2; col. 2, lines 33-34), the shaft having a second end arranged to be functionally connected to a movable element of a screw-and-nut assembly (see col. 2, lines 20-30) in order to exert a force on a stack of disks for braking the aircraft wheel, wherein the shaft has a first set of teeth (50) and the motor sub-assembly has a shuttle (42) mounted to slide relative to the casing (see col. 2, lines 40-45) and provided with a second set of teeth (52) for co-operating with the first set of teeth (see col. 2, lines 46-53), and wherein the motor sub-assembly includes a selector mechanism (40) that moves the shuttle selectively between a first position in which the first set of teeth is engaged with the second set of teeth (see col. 2, lines 46-53) and a second position in which the first set of teeth is disengaged from the second set of teeth (see col. 2, lines 64-67), and wherein the motor sub-assembly includes a holder device that holds the shuttle in the first position (see col. 2, lines 55-59) and a locking device (54) that continuously prevents the shuttle from rotating relative to the casing (see col. 2, lines 53-55).
Klode does not disclose that the selector mechanism comprises a first coil and a second coil or that the first holder device comprises a permanent magnet.
Evenor teaches a motor sub-assembly for an electromechanical brake actuator of an aircraft wheel (see Abstract, FIG. 1) comprising a shuttle (17) and a selector mechanism (21) comprising a first coil (22) and a second coil (22) (see FIG. 2, ¶ 0018) and further that a holder device for holding the shuttle in its first position comprises a permanent magnet (25) (see ¶ 0019).
It would have been obvious to replace the selector mechanism and the holder device of Klode with the selector mechanism and holder device of Evenor to provide a bi-stable actuating device that holds the shuttle in both of the first position and the second position in the absence of power (see e.g. Evenor, ¶ 0020).
Regarding claim 2, Klode discloses that the shuttle is mounted on the shaft to provide a sliding and pivoting connection relative to the shaft (see FIG. 2; col. 2, lines 40-45).
Regarding claim 3, Klode discloses that the sliding and pivoting connection includes a central first portion (48) that extends around a smooth portion of the shaft (see FIG. 2; col. 2, lines 40-45).
Regarding claim 4, Klode discloses that the shuttle is mounted to provide a slideway connection (via (54)) relative to the casing (see FIG. 2; col. 2, lines 53-55).
Regarding claim 6, Klode discloses that the locking device for continuously preventing the shuttle from rotating relative to the casing comprises at least one guide secured to the casing (see FIG. 2; col. 2, lines 53-55) and on which the shuttle is guided to slide along a direction substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis (see FIG. 2; col. 2, lines 53-55).
Regarding claim 7, Klode discloses that the shuttle comprises a first portion (48) made of a non-ferromagnetic material (see col. 2, lines 43-45) and a second portion (42) made of a ferromagnetic material (see col. 2, lines 40-43).
Regarding claim 13, Klode discloses that the electric motor is located in the casing between the shuttle and an output of the electromechanical brake actuator (see FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Klode discloses a brake actuator (10) (see FIG. 1) including the motor sub-assembly according to claim 1 (see claim 1, above).
Regarding claim 18, Evenor teaches that the first coil (22-right) is spaced apart from the second coil (22-left), and the first holder device (25) is between the first coil and the second coil (see FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 19, Evenor teaches that the first coil and the second coil are spaced apart by the permanent magnet that holds the shuttle in both the first position and the second position (see FIG. 2, ¶ 0019).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klode et al. (US 6,561,321) and Evenor et al. (US 2015/0266568), as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Isizuka (US 2013/0221777).
Regarding claim 8, Klode does not disclose that the shuttle is located in the casing between the electric motor and the an output of the electromechanical brake actuator.
Isizuka teaches a motor sub-assembly for an electromechanical brake actuator (see Abstract, FIGS. 1, 3) comprising a shuttle (A) (see Annotated FIG. 3, below) located in the casing (B) between the electric motor (112) and an output (116) of the electromechanical brake actuator (see FIG. 3).
It would have been obvious to locate the shuttle of Klode between the motor and the output, as taught by Isizuka, because Isizuka teaches that this is a known alternative to the configuration wherein the motor is located between the shuttle and the output (see e.g. Isizuka, FIGS. 1, 3; showing alternative locations of parking brake (14, 114)).
PNG
media_image1.png
700
504
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klode et al. (US 6,561,321) in view of Evenor et al. (US 2015/0266568), as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Church (US 2019/0096557).
Regarding claim 9, neither Klode nor Evenor disclose a second holder device that holds the shuttle in the second position.
Church teaches a bi-stable actuator (see Abstract, FIG. 4A) comprising a shuttle (100), a selector mechanism (68, 72) comprising a first coil (68) and a second coil (72) (see FIGS. 6, 7, ¶¶ 0025, 0026), and a first holder device (90) and a second holder device (92) that holds the shuttle in the second position (see ¶ 0026).
It would have been obvious to configure the holder device to have a first and a second permanent magnet to provide an increased flux density sufficient to hold the armature in either the first position or the second position (see e.g. Church, ¶ 0006).
Regarding claim 11, Church teaches that the second holder device for holding the shuttle in its second position comprises a permanent magnet (see ¶¶ 0025, 0026).
Claims 1, 6, and 12-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evenor et al. (US 2015/0266568) in view of Klode et al. (US 6,561,321).
Regarding claim 1, Klode discloses a motor sub-assembly (see Abstract, FIG. 1) for an electromechanical brake actuator of an aircraft wheel (see Abstract, FIG. 1), the motor sub-assembly comprising: -a casing (1, 11), -a shaft (8) mounted in the casing to rotate about a longitudinal axis of the shaft (see FIG. 1; ¶ 0015), and an electric motor (3) mounted in the casing and connected to a first end of the shaft in order to drive the shaft in rotation (see FIG. 1; ¶ 0015), the shaft having a second end (5) arranged to be functionally connected to a movable element of a screw-and-nut assembly (see FIG. 1; ¶ 0015) in order to exert a force on a stack of disks for braking the aircraft wheel (see e.g. ¶ 0013), wherein the shaft has a first set of teeth (9) and the motor sub-assembly has a shuttle (17) mounted to slide relative to the casing (see ¶ 0018) and provided with a second set of teeth (18) for co-operating with the first set of teeth (see ¶ 0018), and wherein the motor sub-assembly includes a selector mechanism (21) that moves the shuttle selectively between a first position in which the first set of teeth is engaged with the second set of teeth (see ¶ 0011; FIG. 3) and a second position in which the first set of teeth is disengaged from the second set of teeth (see ¶ 0012; FIG. 4), and wherein the motor sub-assembly includes a holder device (25) that holds the shuttle in the first position (see ¶ 0020) and a locking device (13, 14, 15, 16) that prevents the shuttle from rotating relative to the casing (see ¶¶ 0021, 0022), that the selector mechanism comprises a first coil (22) and a second coil (22) (see FIG. 2, ¶ 0018) and that the first holder device comprises a permanent magnet (see ¶ 0018).
Evenor does not disclose that the locking device “continuously” prevents the shuttle from rotating relative to the casing. It is noted that present application states that “[i]n the meaning of the present application, a device for continuously preventing the shuttle from rotating means that the device is not declutchable.”
Klode teaches a motor sub-assembly (see FIG. 2) for an electromechanical brake actuator comprising: -a casing (47), a shuttle (42) mounted to slide relative to the casing (see col. 2, lines 40-45) and provided with a second set of teeth (52) for co-operating with the first set of teeth (see col. 2, lines 46-53), and wherein the motor sub-assembly includes a locking device (54) that continuously prevents the shuttle from rotating relative to the casing (see col. 2, lines 53-55).
It would have been obvious to replace the locking device of Evenor with the locking device of Klode to reduce the complexity of the device (e.g. a slippable brake (see Evenor, FIG. 1) comprising a sleeve (13), a plate (14), friction discs (15) and a spring (16) is replaced by tabs (54) (see FIG. 2 of Klode) integral with the shuttle and corresponding grooves in the casing).
Regarding claim 6, Klode teaches that the locking device for continuously preventing the shuttle from rotating relative to the casing comprises at least one guide secured to the casing (see FIG. 2; col. 2, lines 53-55) and on which the shuttle is guided to slide along a direction substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis (see FIG. 2; col. 2, lines 53-55).
Regarding claim 12, Evenor discloses that the first set of teeth (9) and/or the second set of teeth (18) includes a face lying in a first plane intersecting the longitudinal axis (see FIGS. 3, 4). Evenor does not specify that a first angle between the first plane and the longitudinal axis (Oy)is lying in the range 5° to 85°. However, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (See MPEP 2144.05.II.A) (citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). In the present case, Evenor recognized that the slope of the teeth is a result-effective variable for both blocking rotation of the shaft and allowing rotation of the shaft in an opposite direction with sufficient force (see e.g. ¶ 0023). As such, it would have been a matter of routine optimization to arrive at an angle of between 5° to 85° to provide a sufficient holding force in one direction while allowing rotation upon application of force in a reverse direction.
Regarding claim 13, Evenor discloses that the electric motor is located in the casing between the shuttle and an output of the electromechanical brake actuator (see FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Evenor discloses a brake actuator (see ¶ 0006) including the motor sub-assembly according to claim 1 (see claim 1, above).
Regarding claim 15, Evenor discloses a braking system for an aircraft wheel (see ¶¶ 0006, 0013), the braking system comprising a stack of disks having rotor disks constrained in rotation with the aircraft wheel (see ¶¶ 0006, 0013) and stator disks constrained in rotation with an axle on which the aircraft wheel is rotatably mounted (see ¶¶ 0006, 0013), and an the brake actuator according to claim 14 (see claim 14, above) wherein the brake actuator exerts a compression force on the stack of disks (see ¶ 0006).
Regarding claim 16, Evenor discloses an aircraft including at least one wheel provided with a braking system according to claim 15 (see ¶¶ 0006, 0013; claim 15, above).
Regarding claim 17, Evenor discloses that the shuttle comprises a collar (20), and the selector mechanism further comprises, an annular support (B), and a lid (C) (see Annotated FIG. 1, below).
PNG
media_image2.png
712
622
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Evenor discloses that the first coil (22-right) is spaced apart from the second coil (22-left), and the first holder device (25) is between the first coil and the second coil (see FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 19, Evenor discloses that the first coil and the second coil are spaced apart by the permanent magnet that holds the shuttle in both the first position and the second position (see FIG. 2, ¶ 0019).
Regarding claim 20, Evenor discloses that the first coil (23) (see FIG. 1, element labeled “23” but corresponding with one of the coils “22” in Figure 2) is beside the electric motor (see FIG. 1) and the second coil (22) is at an output (9) of the motor sub-assembly (see FIG. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10-Feb-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of independent claim 1 over Klode and Evenor, Applicant argues that “claim 1 as amended requires both features in combination – a selector mechanism with a first coil and a second coil, and a holder device comprising a permanent magnet that holds the shuttle in the first position – which neither Klode nor the combination teaches or suggests” (see Amendment, page 11). Evenor, however, teaches a selector mechanism with a first coil (22) and a second coil (22) (see FIG. 2, ¶ 0018), and a holder device comprising a permanent magnet (25) that holds the shuttle in the first position (see ¶ 0019).
Applicant further argues that “Evenor’s splined sleeve tube 13 is not a continuous locking device” (see Amendment, page 11). Evenor, however, was not relied upon as disclosing a continuous locking device. Klode discloses a continuous locking device (see col. 2, lines 53-55).
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
May 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights