DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Status of Claims
This is the first Office Action on the merits for application no. 18/286,885 filed on October 13th, 2023. Claims 1-10 are pending.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s claim to priority of application CN 2021 1076 5776.2 filed on July 7th, 2021. A certified copy was received on October 13th, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 23rd, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement was considered by the Examiner.
Examiner Note
Examiner would welcome an interview to clarify any of the various objections and/or rejections seen below in order to expediate prosecution of the instant application.
Claim Objections
Regarding Claim 6 (lines 1-2), please change the recitation of “wherein a plurality of raised edges” to - - wherein the raised edge is one of a plurality of raised edges - - to correct a minor informality.
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 1-10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1 (lines 3-4), in the recitation of “a mounting portion for mounting the friction ring being defined on the mounting seat” the difference between the “mounting portion” recited in claim 1 and the “mounting seat” recited in claim 1 is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “a mounting portion for mounting the friction ring being defined [[on]] as the mounting seat” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 4, in the recitation of “wherein the raised edge for being snapped in the snap-fit groove is provided at two ends of the friction ring, respectively” it is unclear how many raised edges Applicant intends to recite. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the raised edge is one of a plurality of raised edges for being snapped in the snap-fit groove is provided at two ends of the friction ring, respectively” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination.
Regarding Claim 9 (lines 1-2), in the recitation of “A motor, comprising a drive shaft and the self-locking mechanism according to claim 1” the difference between the “rotary body” recited in claim 1 (line 3) and the “drive shaft” recited in claim 9 (lines 1-2) is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “A motor, comprising a drive shaft, which serves as the rotary body, and the self-locking mechanism according to claim 1” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Claims 2-10 are rejected based upon their dependency to a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office Action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu (US 8,528,706).
Regarding Claim 1, Wu teaches a self-locking mechanism (see Figs. 10-11), comprising a friction ring (“torsion spring” 32d) and a mounting seat (“fastening element” 12d) fixed relative to the friction ring (32d),
a notch (adjacent “positioning arm” 321d) being provided on the friction ring (32d),
the friction ring (32d) being sleeved over a rotary body (“rotating shaft” 20) to be braked (col. 3, line 50 – “The friction element 31 is arranged on the external periphery of the rotating shaft 20. The torsion spring 32 can be a right-hand rotating torsion spring, so that when the rotating shaft 20 rotates counterclockwise, the torsion spring 32 produces a contraction in a radial direction. On the other hand, when the rotating shaft 20 rotates clockwise, the torsion spring 32 produces an expansion in a radial direction”),
a mounting portion (12d) for mounting the friction ring (32d) being defined on the mounting seat (12d; see 112(b) rejection above),
the mounting seat (12d) pressing the friction ring (32d) towards the notch (adjacent 321d) to apply a braking force against the rotary body (20 via “friction element” 31d).
Regarding Claim 2, Wu teaches the self-locking mechanism according to claim 1, wherein the self-locking mechanism (see Figs. 10-11) further comprises a limiting structure (126d and 321d) configured to limit circumferential rotation of the friction ring (32d) relative to the mounting seat (12d).
Regarding Claim 3, Wu teaches the self-locking mechanism according to claim 2, wherein the limiting structure (Figs. 10-11, 126d, 321d) comprises a snap-fit groove (126d) provided on the mounting portion (12d) and a raised edge (321d) provided on the friction ring (32d),
the raised edge (321d) being snapped in the snap-fit groove (126d).
Regarding Claim 9, Wu teaches a motor (Fig. 10, “motor” 1), comprising a drive shaft (20) and the self-locking mechanism according to claim 1, the self-locking mechanism being configured to brake the drive shaft (20; see 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding Claim 10, Wu teaches a linear actuator (not shown in Fig. 10), comprising the motor (1) according to claim 9 (col. 1, line 6 – “The present invention relates to a motor used for a linear actuator, and in particular to a motor with a braking mechanism for the actuator”).
Claims 1-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (CN 2745326). Zhang was cited on the IDS filed December 23rd, 2024. See translation provided by Applicant.
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang teaches a self-locking mechanism (see Figs. 1-2 and 4), comprising a friction ring (“friction ring” 2) and a mounting seat (“bracket” 5) fixed relative to the friction ring (2),
a notch (“opening” 2-1) being provided on the friction ring (2),
the friction ring (2) being sleeved over a rotary body (“rotating shaft” 1) to be braked ([0026] – “By the pressure of the compression spring 3 on the pre-tightening friction ring 2, the compression spring 3 pushes the pre-tightening friction ring 2 to slide along the inner conical surface of the through hole of the bracket 5 toward the top of the cone. At the same time, the opening gap of the pretightening friction ring becomes smaller, automatically maintaining the clamping friction force between the pre-tightening friction ring 2 and the rotating shaft 1, thereby ensuring that the torque of the rotating shaft 1 remains unchanged when rotating”),
a mounting portion (5; see 112(b) rejection above) for mounting the friction ring (2) being defined on the mounting seat (5),
the mounting seat (5) pressing the friction ring (2) towards the notch (2-1) to apply a braking force against the rotary body (1; see Figs. 1-2 and 4; see [0026]).
Regarding Claim 2, Zhang teaches the self-locking mechanism according to claim 1,
wherein the self-locking mechanism further comprises a limiting structure (Figs. 2 and 4; “groove” 5-1 and “protrusion” 2-2) configured to limit circumferential rotation of the friction ring (2) relative to the mounting seat (5).
Regarding Claim 3, Zhang teaches the self-locking mechanism according to claim 2,
wherein the limiting structure (Figs. 2 and 4; 5-1 and 2-2) comprises a snap-fit groove (5-1) provided on the mounting portion (5) and a raised edge (2-2) provided on the friction ring (2),
the raised edge (2-2) being snapped in the snap-fit groove (5-1; [0031] – “When assembling the utility model, first put the strip-shaped protrusion 2-2 on the bottom of the outer surface of the pre-tightening friction ring2 into theguidegrooveS-1 of the bracket 5,”).
Regarding Claim 5, Zhang teaches the self-locking mechanism according to claim 3,
wherein the raised edge (Figs. 2 and 4; 2-2) is provided at one (left or right) of two ends (left and right ends) of the friction ring (2).
Regarding Claim 8, Zhang teaches the self-locking mechanism according to claim 1,
wherein the mounting portion (Figs. 1-2; 5) comprises a base (“cylindrical shape” 5-3) of an annular shape (see Fig. 2) and a plurality of brackets (“through holes” 5-6) disposed at intervals along a circumferential direction of the base (5-3),
the plurality of brackets (5-3) being connected via a chassis (portion between 5-3 and 5-6) to form the mounting portion (5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 6-7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office Action and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for allowance, if applicable, will be the subject of a separate communication to the Applicant or patent owner, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.104 and MPEP § 1302.14.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, Applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. The prior art of Higuchi (US 4,646,888), Bellows (US 10,835,346) and Kuhn (US 11,411,464) listed in the attached "Notice of References Cited" disclose similar locking mechanisms comprising friction rings related to various aspects of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James J. Taylor II whose telephone number is (571)272-4074. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
JAMES J. TAYLOR II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655
/JAMES J TAYLOR II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655