DETAILED ACTION
Application Status
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 13, 16, 18, 26-31, 33, 35-36, 38, and 43-50 are pending and have been examined in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 06/02/2026 and 06/22/2026 have been reviewed and considered.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 16 and 27 under §112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections of claims 16 and 27 under §112 have been withdrawn.
The applicant argues that Donetti fails to disclose, “[a] motor located within a motor housing and the motor housing secured to [a] brake housing”.
However; Donetti plainly discloses, “a support 48 fixed to the body 44 and configured to carry the drive means 43′” (paragraph [0038]). Support 48 is considered to be a housing because it physically carries (houses) the drive means (43). Further, Donetti plainly discloses, “The casing 18 is closed by the cover 25 fixed to the support 48 on the axial side opposite to the cover 47” (paragraph [0039]). Cover (25) is considered to be an element of casing (18) because it closes the casing. Since casing (18) is fixed to support (48), casing (18) is considered to be fixed to support (48).
The applicant further argues that Stout fails to disclose, “at least a portion of the motor is positioned within the brake housing”. Specifically, the applicant argues that Stout does not disclose this limitation because shaft (115) is not part of the motor (114). The shaft (115) is considered to be a part of motor (114) because shaft (115) serves to be an output of motor (114).
The applicant further argues a lack of motivation to further modify Stout in view of Donetti to have the motor characteristics claimed in claims 38. The applicant asserts that, “this rejection amounts to mere hindsight construction”. The applicant notes, “the prior art does not recognize the importance of the values set forth in claim 38”. The prior art need not recognize the importance of such values to anticipate such values. Further, the applicant does not address the motivation to combined provided in the non-final rejection, “to provide a motor capable of providing adequate torque for the system”. Even further, the applicant does not address Stout’s teachings of being able to use “virtually any motor” (Stout; paragraph [0028]).
The applicant further argues that Stout fails to teach “a command to the motor to return-to-center”. This argument is persuasive, and accordingly, a new rejection is made in view of Wang (US 10336363 B2).
Claim Objections
Claim 44 is objected to because of the following informalities:
IN claim 44, “the steering response include is capable…” appears to contain a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 10, 16, 18, 26, 29, 31, 33, 35, 38, 43-45, and 47 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stout (US 20030121713 A1) in view of Donetti (US 20160152259 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Stout discloses: A steer-by-wire system ("steer-by-wire", paragraph [0002]) providing a steering response, the system comprising: a brake (110, Fig. 1); a motor (114) coupled in-line with the brake; a shaft (115) coupled to the brake and/or the motor; a first position sensor (113) capable of providing an angular position of the shaft; at least one microcontroller (116) capable of providing input to at least one of the motor and the brake to create the steering response (see "outputs of the steering wheel controller", paragraph [0023]), wherein the brake, the motor and the position sensor are in electronic communication with the microcontroller (see paragraph [0023]).
Regarding the limitation, “at least one position sensor capable of providing an angular position of the shaft”, Stout discloses that the position sensor (113) senses a steering wheel angle (see paragraph [0022]). Since the rotational angle of a steering wheel correlates to the rotational position of a steering shaft in an automotive steering system, the sensor is considered to be capable of providing an angular position of the shaft.
Stout is silent in teaching: a motor housing, the motor being disposed within the motor housing, a brake housing, and the motor housing being secured to the brake housing.
Donetti teaches: a steer-by-wire system ("steering by wire system", paragraph [0022]) providing a steering response, the system comprising: a brake (43, Fig. 3) located within a brake housing (48; also see paragraph [0038]); a motor (8) coupled in-line with the brake, the motor located within a motor housing (18; also see paragraph [0027]) and the motor housing secured to the brake housing;
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Stout in view of Donetti to arrive at the claimed invention and to provide the brake and motor in a compact arrangement. Such a person would have been further motivated to provide housings to prevent the ingress of dirt and debris into the motor and the brake.
With respect to claim 3, Stout in view of Donetti as modified above teaches: The steer-by-wire system of claim 1, wherein the brake is a TFD brake (Stout; see “steering feel”, paragraph [0025]), a drum brake, a disk brake, a friction brake, or an electromagnetic brake.
With respect to claim 4, Stout in view of Donetti teaches: The steer-by-wire system of claim 1, wherein the brake is a TFD brake (Stout; see “steering feel”, paragraph [0025]) which includes magnetorheological fluid (MR fluid) (see “magnetorheological”, abstract) or magnetically responsive powder (MR powder, the TFD brake provides a variable resistive torque (see “variable damper assistance”, paragraph [0002]; also see Fig. 6) and is capable of providing an end stop torque (see “emulates mechanical stop feature”, paragraph [0064]).
With respect to claim 6, Stout in view of Donetti teaches: the steer-by-wires system of claim 1, wherein at least a portion (Donetti; 3, Fig. 3) of the motor (8) is positioned within the brake housing (18).
Note, steering column 3 is considered to be a "portion of the motor" because in the embodiment illustrated in Fig. 3, the steering column acts as an output shaft of the motor (see paragraph [0034]).
With respect to claim 10, Stout in view of Donetti teaches: the steer-by wire system of claim 1, but is silent in teaching a second position senor.
The steer-by-wire system taught by Donetti does first and second position sensors (10/11). Donetti further teaches that the second position sensor is redundant with respect to the first position sensor (see paragraph [0013]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Stout further in view of Donetti to arrive at the claimed invention and to provide a redundant position sensor to act as a back-up in the event that one position sensor fails.
With respect to claim 16, Stout in view of Donetti teaches: the steer-by-wire system of claim 10, wherein the signal from the position sensor (Donetti; 10, Fig. 1) includes a measurement of an angular position of the shaft (See paragraph [0025]).
With respect to claim 18, Stout in view of Donetti teaches: the steer-by-wire system of claim 1, further comprising at least one amplifier (Stout; 124, Fig. 1) capable of transmitting a variable current through at least one winding coil of the motor (see paragraph [0029]).
With respect to claim 26, Stout in view of Donetti teaches: the steer-by-wire system of claim 1, wherein the microcontroller is capable of providing a variable tactile feel (Stout; see “adjustable steering feel”, paragraph [0013]).
With respect to claim 29, Stout in view of Donelli teaches: the steer-by-wire system of claim 26, wherein the microcontroller (Stout; 116, Fig. 1) is capable of communicating a command to the motor (114) to control the angular position of the shaft (see paragraph [00056]).
With respect to claim 31, Stout in view of Donetti teaches: The steer-by-wire system of claim 26, wherein the microcontroller (Stout; 116, Fig. 1) includes programming suitable for providing a command input to the brake, the command input producing a braking action that replicates an end of travel stop (see “emulates mechanical stop feature”, paragraph [0064]), a normal operation (see “when the driver turns the steering wheel…”, paragraph [0036]), and/or a resistive force (“viscous torque”, paragraph [0025]) corresponding to an action associated with the steering response.
With respect to claim 33, Stout in view of Donetti teaches: the steer-by-wire system of claim 1, wherein the steer-by-wire system does not include a gear pack between the at least one position sensor (Stout; 113, Fig. 1) and the shaft (115) coupled to the brake (110) and/or motor (114).
With respect to claim 35, Stout in view of Donetti teaches: the steer-by-wire system of claim 1, wherein the microcontroller (Stout; 116, Fig. 1) is able to measure and process angular position measurements communicated from the position sensor (see paragraph [0023]).
With respect to claim 38, Stout in view of Donetti teaches: the steer-by-wire system of claim 1 but is silent in teaching that the motor is capable of providing a force that exceeds an off-state brake torque level between about 0.01% and about 25.0% of a maximum possible resistive brake torque for the brake. However; before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary sill in the art to further modify Stout in view of Donetti by providing a motor with the claimed performance characteristics. Such a person would have been motivated to select such a motor to provide a motor capable of providing adequate torque for the system. Further note, Stout discloses, “virtually any motor can be used as long as it meets the motor's performance requirements”.
With respect to claim 43, Stout teaches: A method of providing a steering response in a vehicle, the method comprising: an operator driving the vehicle; the driving including the operator steering a vehicle steering system, the vehicle steering system having a steer-by-wire system that is capable of providing the steering response, the steer-by-wire system including: a brake (110, Fig. 2) located within a brake housing; a motor (111) coupled in-line with the brake, the motor located within a motor housing and the motor housing secured to the brake housing; a shaft (115) coupled to the brake or the motor; at least one position sensor (113) capable of generating and providing an angular position signal of the shaft; at least one microcontroller (118) capable of providing input to the motor and the brake to create the steering response, wherein the brake, the motor and the position sensor are in electronic communication with the at least one microcontroller (see paragraph [0023]); rotating the shaft by the operator providing at least one steering input to the vehicle steering system; translating the at least one steering input into an electronic steering command with the steer-by-wire system; communicating an angular position of the shaft to a steering controller from the at least one microcontroller (see paragraphs [0039]-[0044]]); providing a semi-active tactile feedback to the operator, the semi-active tactile feedback creating the steering response which simulates a direct linkage steering system (see "will feel the change…", paragraph [0036]).
Stout is silent in teaching: a motor housing, the motor being disposed within the motor housing, a brake housing, and the motor housing being secured to the brake housing.
Donetti teaches: a steer-by-wire system ("steering by wire system", paragraph [0022]) providing a steering response, the system comprising: a brake (43, Fig. 3) located within a brake housing (48; also see paragraph [0038]); a motor (8) coupled in-line with the brake, the motor located within a motor housing (18; also see paragraph [0027]) and the motor housing secured to the brake housing;
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Stout in view of Donetti to arrive at the claimed arrangement and to provide the brake and motor in a compact arrangement. Such a person would have been further motivated to provide housings to prevent the ingress of dirt and debris into the motor and the brake.
With respect to claim 44, Stout in view of Donetti as modified above teaches: the method of claim 43, wherein the steering response is capable of providing a plurality of electronic steering commands selected from the group consisting of: an end stop control (Stout; see “stop feature”, paragraph [0064]) and a resistive torque (“a very smooth viscous torque to the steering effort experience by the driver”, paragraph [0025]) a return-to-center, at least one deviation warning, traction feel, wheel slip feel, on center feel, and a steering synchronization
With respect to claim 45, Stout in view of Donetti teaches: The method of claim 43, wherein the semi-active tactile feedback is based on combination of a steering sensor position, a steering velocity, a steering acceleration, or a digital input (Stout; 120/121, Fig. 1; also see paragraphs [0027]-[0029]) from the steering controller (116).
With respect to claim 47, Stout in view of Donetti teaches: the method of claim 43, wherein the step of rotating the shaft further comprises measuring the operator's at least one steering input via the shaft by the position sensor (Stout; 113, Fig. 1), the position sensor communicating a position signal to the at least one microcontroller or the steering controller (116, Fig. 1), the at least one microcontroller providing the semi-active tactile feedback to the operator through the brake and/or the motor (see paragraph [0036]).
Claim 2 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stout (US 20030121713 A1) in view of Donetti (US 20160152259 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jiang (CN 108407887 A).
With respect to claim 2, Stout in view of Donetti as modified above teaches: the steer-by-wire system of claim 1 but is silent in teaching a second microcontroller, wherein one of the at least two microcontrollers provide control to the brake and one of the at least two microcontrollers provides control to the motor.
Jiang teaches a steering feel feedback system (see “steering wheel feedback”, paragraph [0004]) comprising a motor (9, Fig. 1) and a brake (5) and at least two microcontrollers (27/29), wherein one of the at least two microcontrollers provide control to the brake (see “magnetorheological fluid controller 29”, paragraph [0035]) and one of the at least two microcontrollers provide control to the motor (see “motor controller”, paragraph [0035]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Stout in view of Donetti in further view of Jiang to arrive at the claimed invention. Such a modification would be considered obvious because it is a simple substitution of one known element (the combined motor/brake controller taught by Donetti) for another known element (the split motor/brake controllers) taught by Jiang to achieve predictable results. Since both the combined controller, and the split controllers are used to control similar devices for similar reasons, such a person would expect that the use of split controllers would not change operation of the device. Such a person would have been motivated to make the modification to allow either the motor or the brake to continue to operate independently of the other in the event that one of the controllers fails.
Claim 13 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stout (US 20030121713 A1) in view of Donetti (US 20160152259 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Granig (US 20100050731 A1).
With respect to claim 13, Stout in view of Donetti teaches: the steer-by-wire system of claim 10 but is silent regarding a margin of error with respect to the position sensors.
Granig teaches a position sensor (32, Fig. 1) that is capable of providing a shaft position within a margin of error between -5° to +5° (see paragraph [0028]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Stout in view of Donetti in further view of Granig to provide a position sensor capable of providing a shaft position within the claimed range to ensure that accurate steering data is fed to the controller.
Claim 27 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stout (US 20030121713 A1) in view of Donetti (US 20160152259 A1) as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Wang (US 10336363 B2).
With respect to claim 27, Stout in view of Donetti as modified above teaches the steer-by-wire system of claim 26 but is silent in teaching that the microcontroller is capable of communicating a command to the motor to return-to-center in the absence of an input from the position sensor.
Wang teaches a steering system comprising a microcontroller capable of communicating a command to a motor to return-to-center (“generates a motor torque to assist the return of the wheel to a center position”, Col. 7, LL. 33-34). The system taught by Wang returns the steering wheel to a center position when a driver releases a steering wheel (see Col. 7, LL. 30-34).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Stout in view of Donetti in further view of Wang to arrive at the claimed invention and to prevent erroneous turning of the vehicle.
Regarding, “in the absence of an input from the position sensor”, claim 27 claims that the microcontroller is capable of communicating a command when this condition is met. The references relied upon do not disclose teach or otherwise suggest that the presence of input from a position sensor would disallow the return-to-center command. Accordingly, the combined references are considered to meet the limitation.
Claim 28 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stout (US 20030121713 A1) in view of Donetti (US 20160152259 A1) and Wang (US 10336363 B2) as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Bratina (WO 2020104510 A1).
With respect to claim 28, Stout in view of Donetti and Wang as modified above teaches the steer-by-wire system of claim 27, wherein the microcontroller is capable of communicating a command to the motor to return-to-center in the absence of a motion, but is silent in teaching that motion is detected by a contactless position sensor.
Bratina teaches a steering system comprising a contactless position sensor (“non-contact sensor”, paragraph [0051]). Bratina further teaches that contactless sensors are advantageous because they are simple and reduce design effort (see paragraph [0051]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Stout in view of Donetti and Wang in further view of Bratina to arrive at the claimed invention by substituting the position sensor disclosed by Stout for the sensor taught by Bratina. Such a person would have been motivated to make the modification for the advantages of contactless sensor taught by Bratina.
Regarding the, “in the absence of a motion” limitation, nothing disclosed or taught by any of the reference suggests that detected motion would stop a microcontroller from communicating a command when the claimed condition is met. Accordingly, the references are considered to teach a microcontroller that is capable of sending a return-to-center command when the condition is met.
Claim 30 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stout (US 20030121713 A1) in view of Donetti (US 20160152259 A1) as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Miura (US 20170232889 A1).
With respect to claim 30, Stout in view of Donetti as modified above teaches: the steer-by-wire system of claim 26 but is silent in teaching that the microcontroller is capable of communicating a command to the motor to introduce a warning command to the shaft causing the shaft to vibrate or dither.
Miura teaches a steer-by-wire system comprising a motor (18, Fig. 1) and a microcontroller (ECU) capable of communicating a command to the motor to introduce a warning command to the shaft causing the shaft to vibrate or dither (see paragraph [0050]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Stout in view of Donetti in further view of Miura to arrive at the claimed invention and to improve the safety of the vehicle.
Claim 36 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stout (US 20030121713 A1) in view of Donetti (US 20160152259 A1) as applied to claim 36 above, and further in view of Suzuki (US 20220255474 A1).
With respect to claim 36, Stout in view of Donetti as modified above teaches: the steer-by-wire system of claim 1, wherein the microcontroller is able to command the motor to turn in a desired direction but is silent regarding controlling the motor with a current having a phase difference for commutation. Stout discloses that the motor uses direct current (paragraph [0028]) but further discloses that any motor can be used so long as certain performance criteria are met (see paragraph [0028]).
Suzuki teaches a steer-by-wire system (“steer-by-wire”, abstract) comprising: a motor (800, Fig. 2), wherein the motor is controlled for commutation (see paragraph [0085]) with a current having a specific phase difference (see “three-phase motor”, paragraph [0085]). Note, since motor (800) is a 3-phase motor, the current used to control it would comprise three signals with a specific phase difference of 120°.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Stout in view of Donetti by substituting the DC motor disclosed by Stout for the 3-phase motor taught by Suzuki. Such a modification would be obvious because it is a simple substitution of one known element (DC motor) for another known element (AC motor) to achieve predictable results. Since Scout discloses that any motor meeting certain performance criteria is suitable for use in the steer-by-wire system, and the motor taught by Suzuki is also used in a steer-by-wire system, such a person would have expected the substitution to result in a substantially similar device. Such a person would have been motivated to make the modification because AC motors are generally more cost-effective than comparable DC motors.
Claims 46 and 49 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stout (US 20030121713 A1) in view of Donetti (US 20160152259 A1) as applied to claim 43 above, and further in view of Jiang (CN 108407887 A).
With respect to claim 46, Stout in view of Donetti teaches: the method of claim 45, wherein the semi-active tactile feedback includes constant, periodic or a variable braking torque (Stout; see “variable damper assistance”, paragraph [0002]; also see Fig. 6), but is silent in teaching that the feedback is generated by sending a current through an integrated coil.
Jiang teaches a steering feel feedback system (see “steering wheel feedback”, paragraph [0004]) comprising a magnetorheological brake (5, Fig. 1; also see “magnetorheological fluid”, paragraph [0035]) configured to provide semi-active tactile feedback by sending a signal through an integrated coil (see “first excitation coil 8”, paragraph [0036]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Stout in view of Donetti in further view of Jiang to arrive at the claimed invention and to provide actuation means for the magnetorheological brake.
With respect to claim 49, Stout in view of Donetti teaches: the method of claim 43, but is silent in teaching a second microcontroller, wherein one of the at least two microcontrollers provide control to the brake and one of the at least two microcontrollers provide control to the motor.
Jiang teaches a steering feel feedback system (see “steering wheel feedback”, paragraph [0004]) comprising a motor (9, Fig. 1) and a brake (5) and at least two microcontrollers (27/29), wherein one of the at least two microcontrollers provide control to the brake (see “magnetorheological fluid controller 29”, paragraph [0035]) and one of the at least two microcontrollers provide control to the motor (see “motor controller”, paragraph [0035]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Stout in view of Donetti in further view of Jiang to arrive at the claimed invention. Such a modification would be considered obvious because it is a simple substitution of one known element (the combined motor/brake controller taught by Donetti) for another known element (the split motor/brake controllers) taught by Jiang to achieve predictable results. Since both the combined controller, and the split controllers are used to control similar devices for similar reasons, such a person would expect that the use of split controllers would not change operation of the device. Such a person would have been motivated to make the modification to allow either the motor or the brake to continue to operate independently of the other in the event that one of the controllers fails.
Claim 48 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stout (US 20030121713 A1) in view of Donetti (US 20160152259 A1) as applied to claim 43 above, and further in view of Wang (US 10336363 B2).
With respect to claim 48, Stout in view of Donetti as modified above teaches the method of claim 43 but is silent in teaching returning the shaft to a center position when the at least one position sensor detects no change in at least one steering input from the operator during a manufacture selected interval.
Wang teaches a steering system and a method of operating such a system comprising: returning a steering shaft (16) to a center position when a driver’s hands are not on a steering wheel (see Col. 7, LL. 30-35).
Note, Stout in view of Donetti as applied to claim 43 above includes a position sensor. When the steering shaft is returned to center by the method taught by Wang, the position sensor disclosed by Stout would not detect a change in at least one steering input from the operator because the driver would not be operating the steering input. Accordingly, the combination of Stout Donetti and Wang as modified results in a shaft being returned to a center position in a scenario in which the position sensor detects no change in at least one steering input from the operator.
Claim 50 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stout (US 20030121713 A1) in view of Donetti (US 20160152259 A1) as applied to new above, and further in view of Andonian (US 6557662 B1).
With respect to claim 50, Stout in view of Donetti teaches: the method of claim 4, further comprising the step of using the angular position signal from the at least one position sensor in the at least one microcontroller to calculate the required commutation signals from a brushed direct current motor (Stout; “DC brushed motor”, paragraph [0028]).
Andonian teaches a steer-by-wire system (“steer by wire”, Col. 1, L. 18) comprising a brushless DC motor (see “brushless”, Col. 1, L. 36).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Stout in view of Donetti in further view of Andonian to arrive at the claimed invention and to increase the lifespan of the motor by reducing wear due to friction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claims 7 and 8, the closest prior art of record is Stout (US 20030121713 A1). Stout discloses: A steer-by-wire system ("steer-by-wire", paragraph [0002]) providing a steering response, the system comprising: a brake (110, Fig. 1) located within a brake housing; a motor (114) coupled in-line with the brake; a shaft (115) coupled to the brake and/or the motor; at least one position sensor (113) capable of providing an angular position of the shaft; at least one microcontroller (116) capable of providing input to at least one of the motor and the brake to create the steering response (see "outputs of the steering wheel controller", paragraph [0023]), wherein the brake, the motor and the position sensor are in electronic communication with the microcontroller (see paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 7, Stout fails to disclose at least: a pole ring fixedly positioned radially outward from the drum rotor forming a second gap therebetween; and a magnetically responsive (MR) material disposed within the second gap.
Regarding claim 8, Stout fails to discloses at least: the housing including a second sealed chamber, the second sealed chamber housing a brake control electronics system for controlling and monitoring an operation of the brake.
Suggestions to modify Stout to arrive at the invention as claimed in claims 7 and 8 were not reasonably found in the prior art.
Conclusion
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 Matthew D Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-6087. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. (7:30 - 5:00 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, John Olszewski can be reached at (571) 272-2706. 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.
/MATTHEW D LEE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3617
/JOHN OLSZEWSKI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights