CTNF 18/358,429 CTNF 101095 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 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] . 07-22-aia AIA 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] . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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. 08-35 Claim s 1 and 6-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 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. Conclusion 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 Application/Control Number: 18/358,429 Page 2 Art Unit: 3616 Application/Control Number: 18/358,429 Page 3 Art Unit: 3616 Application/Control Number: 18/358,429 Page 4 Art Unit: 3616 Application/Control Number: 18/358,429 Page 5 Art Unit: 3616 Application/Control Number: 18/358,429 Page 6 Art Unit: 3616 Application/Control Number: 18/358,429 Page 7 Art Unit: 3616 Application/Control Number: 18/358,429 Page 8 Art Unit: 3616 Application/Control Number: 18/358,429 Page 9 Art Unit: 3616 Application/Control Number: 18/358,429 Page 10 Art Unit: 3616 Application/Control Number: 18/358,429 Page 11 Art Unit: 3616