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 .
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 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chelaidite et al. (US 2023/0150467 A1) in view of Pellmann (US 2019/0287705 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chelaidite discloses a brake actuator (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-8), in particular for an electromechanical vehicle brake (10), having an electric motor (28) for activating the vehicle brake (10) [see ¶ 0056], a blocking module (106) for selectively rotationally blocking an output shaft (38) of the electric motor (28) so as to configure a parking brake function [see ¶ 0100], wherein the blocking module (106) comprises a blocking lever (114) which is mounted so as to be pivotable between a locking position and a releasing position, and a blocking actuator (112) for pivoting the blocking lever (114) [see ¶ 0008 & 0016], wherein configured on the blocking lever (114) is a blocking tooth (124) which in the locking position of the blocking lever (114) engages with a gear wheel coupled to the output shaft (38) of the electric motor (28) [see ¶ 0101].
Chelaidite does not disclose a magnetic actuator having a moveable, linearly guided armature which is displaceably connected to a tappet coupled to the blocking lever, wherein a spring for applying a pre-loading force in the direction of the locking position is integrated in the blocking actuator in such a manner that the tappet is resiliently mounted on the armature.
Pellmann teaches a blocking actuator (18) having a magnetic actuator with a moveable, linearly guided armature (36) which is displaceably connected to a tappet (22) coupled to the blocking lever (16), wherein a spring (37) for applying a pre-loading force in the direction of the locking position is integrated in the blocking actuator (18) in such a manner that the tappet (22) is resiliently mounted on the armature (36).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing of the claimed invention to replace the blocking actuator of Chelaidite with the blocking actuator of Pellmann to provide the additional functionality of the spring within the bi-stable blocking actuator to allow the tappet to encounter the intermediate position and ensure that the tappet inevitably reaches the extended position, without requiring the coil to be energized, thereby maintaining the bi-stable functionality of the blocking actuator and reducing the power consumption [see Pellmann, ¶ 0035].
Regarding claim 2, Pellmann teaches that the armature (48) has a central recess (72), wherein the recess (72) has a guide portion (72) in which the tappet (22) is linearly guided, and a receptacle portion (A) (see annotated Fig. 3 below) which adjoins the guide portion (72) and is widened in comparison to the guide portion (72), wherein accommodated in the receptacle portion (A) is the spring (37), the latter by way of one end being supported on the armature (36) and by way of the opposite end being supported on the tappet (22).
PNG
media_image1.png
991
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Pellmann teaches that the spring (37) in the receptacle portion (A) circumferentially surrounds the tappet (22).
Regarding claim 4, Pellmann teaches that a laterally projecting appendage (82) on which the spring (37) is supported so as to impinge the tappet (22) towards the locking position is configured on the tappet (22).
Regarding claim 7, Chelaidite discloses that the blocking tooth (124) in the locking position of the blocking lever (114) engages with a drive pinion (40) that is disposed directly on the output shaft (38) of the electric motor (28) [see ¶ 0101].
Regarding claim 8, Pellmann teaches that the blocking actuator (18) comprises a bistable linear magnet (34) [see ¶ 0017].
Regarding claim 9, Chelaidite discloses the electric motor (28) for driving is coupled to an activation slide (88) by way of a gearbox unit (34) and a spindle drive (72), said activation slide (88) for bringing to bear a brake pad (96) on a brake rotor (100) being selectively displaceable between a retracted position and a deployed position [see Chelaidite, ¶ 0023].
Regarding claim 10, Chelaidite discloses an electromechanical vehicle brake (10) having a brake calliper (98), an activation slide (88) which is linearly displaceable in the brake calliper (98) and for bringing to bear a brake pad (96) on a brake rotor (100) is selectively displaceable between a retracted position and a deployed position, and having a brake actuator (see Abstract , FIGS. 1-4) according to Claim 1, wherein the electric motor (28) of the brake actuator for driving is coupled to an activation slide (88) by way of a gearbox unit (62) and a spindle drive (72) [see Chelaidite, ¶ 0023 & 0083].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chelaidite et al. (US 2023/0150467 A1) in view of Pellmann (US 2019/0287705 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Antanaitis et al. (US 2019/0152460 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Chelaidite, as modified, does not disclose that the blocking tooth on one tooth flank has a blocking geometry and on an opposite tooth flank has a lifting geometry, said geometries being configured in such a manner that in a rotation of the electric motor in a first direction that boosts the braking force, the blocking lever by the rotation of the electric motor is lifted counter to the spring force so as to disengage from the gear wheel, and a rotation of the electric motor in an opposite direction that releases the braking force is blocked.
Antanaitis teaches a brake actuator [see Abstract, FIGS. 4, 5] comprising a blocking tooth (92) having a blocking geometry on one tooth flank [see FIG. 4, bottom side of tooth (92)] and on an opposite tooth flank (112) has a lifting geometry [see ¶ 0034], said geometries being configured in such a manner that in a rotation of the electric motor in a first direction that boosts a braking force [see ¶ 0037, “ratchets over parking”], the blocking lever by the rotation of the electric motor is lifted counter to a spring force (123) so as to disengage from the gear wheel [see ¶ 0037], and a rotation of the electric motor in an opposite direction that releases the braking force is blocked [see ¶ 0036].
It would have been obvious at the time of filing of the claimed invention to combine the opposite tooth flank geometry of Antanaitis with the blocking tooth of Chelaidite to accommodate any dimensional changes of braking components that may occur as a result of cooling without releasing parking lock control system [see ¶ 0037].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 11 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 6-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-5, 7, and 10-11 of copending Application No. 18/358,370 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1 of the present application, claims 1 & 7 of the copending application recite a brake actuator, in particular for an electromechanical vehicle brake [see copending application, claim 1], having an electric motor for activating the vehicle brake [see copending application, claim 1], a blocking module for selectively rotationally blocking an output shaft of the electric motor so as to configure a parking brake function [see copending application, claim 1], wherein the blocking module comprises a blocking lever which is mounted so as to be pivotable between a locking position and a releasing position [see copending application, claim1], and a blocking actuator for pivoting the blocking lever [see copending application, claim1], wherein configured on the blocking lever is a blocking tooth which in the locking position of the blocking lever engages with a gear wheel coupled to the output shaft of the electric motor [see copending application, claim 1], wherein the blocking actuator is a magnetic actuator having a moveable, linearly guided armature which is displaceably connected to a tappet coupled to the blocking lever, wherein a spring for applying a pre-loading force in the direction of the locking position is integrated in the blocking actuator in such a manner that the tappet is resiliently mounted on the armature [see copending application, claim 7].
Regarding claim 6 of the present application, claim 1 of the copending application recites that the blocking tooth on one tooth flank has a blocking geometry [see copending application, claim 1], and on an opposite tooth flank has a lifting geometry [see copending application, claim 1], said geometries being configured in such a manner that in a rotation of the electric motor in a first direction that boosts a braking force, the blocking lever by the rotation of the electric motor is lifted counter to a spring force so as to disengage from the gear wheel, and a rotation of the electric motor in an opposite direction that releases the braking force is blocked [see copending application, claim 1].
Regarding claim 7 of the present application, claim 4 of the copending application recites that a blocking tooth in the locking position of the blocking lever engages with a drive pinion that is disposed directly on the output shaft of the electric motor.
Regarding claim 8 of the present application, claim 5 of the copending application recites that the blocking actuator comprises a bistable linear magnet.
Regarding claim 9 of the present application, claim 10 of the copending application recites that the electric motor for driving is coupled to an activation slide by way of a gearbox unit and a spindle drive, said activation slide for bringing to bear a brake pad on a brake rotor being selectively displaceable between a retracted position and a deployed position.
Regarding claim 10 of the present application, claim 11 of the copending application recites that an electromechanical vehicle brake having a brake calliper, an activation slide which is linearly displaceable in the brake calliper and for bringing to bear a brake pad on a brake rotor is selectively displaceable between a retracted position and a deployed position, and having a brake actuator, wherein the electric motor of the brake actuator for driving is coupled to an activation slide by way of a gearbox unit and a spindle drive.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-4 and 7-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Chelaidite in view of Pellmann, Applicant argues that the actuator of Pellmann would not maintain the gear wheel in a locked position. This argument is not persuasive because the rejection does not rely on Pellmann’s actuator as the structure that maintain the gear wheel in the locked position. Rather, Chelaidite’s blocking lever and blocking tooth remain the structures that engage the gear wheel and maintain the locking condition. Pellmann is relied upon for the actuator subassembly, including the moveable armature, tappet/pin, and spring arrangement.
Applicant’s argument appears to require bodily incorporation of Pellmann’s entire lever/gear arrangement into Chelaidite. Such bodily incorporation is not required. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Pellmann’s actuator could be oriented or connected to apply a pushing or pulling force to Chelaidite’s blocking lever as needed to move the blocking lever between the locking and releasing positions. Thus, the proposed modification would not defeat Chelaidite’s locking function because Chelaidite’s blocking lever and blocking tooth remain the structures that engage the gear wheel and maintain the locking condition.
Regarding the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Chelaidite in view of Pellmann and further in view of Antanaitis, Applicant argues that the proposed modification would permit rotation in one direction and therefore would not maintain the hear wheel in a locked condition. This argument is not persuasive. Claim 6 itself recites that rotation of the electric motor in a first direction that boosts the braking force causes the blocking lever to be lifted counter to the spring force, while rotation of the electric motor in an opposite direction that releases the braking force is blocked. Thus, permitting rotation in the brake-force-increasing direction is not contrary to the claim; it is the claimed ratchet-type function. Therefore, the proposed modification would not defeat the parking-lock function because the release direction remains blocked while the brake-force-increasing direction is permitted.
Regarding the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1 and 6-10 over claims 1, 4, 5, 10 and 11 of copending Application No. 18/358,370, Applicant argues that the present claims are patentably distinct because the present claims do not recite certain additional spring/tappet limitations of the copending claims. This argument is not persuasive. The proper inquiry is not whether the present claims include every additional limitation of the claims of the copending application. Rather, the proper inquiry is whether the present claims are patentably distinct from the claims of the copending application.
Claim 1 of the copending application recites the brake actuator, electric motor, blocking module, blocking lever, blocking actuator, blocking tooth engaging a gear wheel coupled to the output shaft, magnetic actuator, movable linearly guided armature, tappet coupled to the blocking lever, and spring/tappet arrangement corresponding to the present claim 1. Claim 1 of the copending application further recites the blocking geometry and lifting geometry corresponding to present claim 6. Claims 4, 5, 10, and 11 of the copending application correspond to present claims 7, 8, 9, and 10, respectively.
Applicant has not identified any limitation in present claims 1 and 6-10 that is absent from, or patentably distinct over, the claims of the copending application. Accordingly, the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1 and 6-10 is maintained.
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 Karem Akram Algarash whose telephone number is (571)272-5789. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-5pm.
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.
/K.A.A./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights