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
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2017-083010 A to Iwata et al. in view of US 3,065,007 to Colmer, Jr.
Re-claim 1, Iwata et al. teach a electric parking brake device comprising: a screw shaft 142a is connected to a brake cable 82; an actuator case 111 supports the screw shaft movably in an axial direction thereof; an electric motor 121 is supported by the actuator case rotatably forward and backward; a motion conversion mechanism (at least 131 with 132 and 141) includes a nut 141 screwed (or threaded) onto the screw shaft 142a (see figure 9), this connection enables conversion from a rotational motion generated in the electric motor to a linear motion of the screw shaft, the structure is accommodated in the actuator case; a rotation restricting device (connection between 152B and groove 113c, figure 9) restricts a rotational motion of the screw shaft, switching between pulling the brake cable and loosening the brake cable is performed by a change in a rotational direction of the electric motor. Iwata et al. is silent regarding the formation of the brake cable, such as by twisting a plurality of wires, the direction of twisting is rotational direction of the nut when the brake cable is pulled.
Colmer, Jr. teach a cable pull device in which a winding direction, or twisting direction of the cable strands are the same as a rotational direction of a buckle (interpreted as a rotating nut, such as 9, which is equivalent to the rotating yet stationary nut of Iwata et al.). The nut 15 in Colmer, Jr. is functionally equivalent to the screw shaft of Iwata et al., as each is kept from rotation, but translated when pulling the cable. This leaves the buckle of Colmer, Jr. as being functionally equivalent to the nut in Iwata et al. The purpose of the twisting direction matching the nut rotation direction is to insure that a tension in the cable will appear as the buckle (or nut of Iwata) is rotated (see column 2 lines 24-27). As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the cable of Iwata et al. with a plurality of wires twisted in a same rotating direction as the nut when the cable is pulled as taught by Colmer, Jr., thus insuring a tension is generated in the cable when pulled by the rotating nut.
Re-claim 2, the rotation restricting device 152B/113c includes a plurality of rotation restricting projection portions (as on opposing sides of 152B, see the presence of at least two grooves 113c, figure 9) that are provided in an end portion of the screw shaft opposite to the brake cable and radially project from the screw shaft, and a plurality of rotation restricting grooves that is formed in the actuator case 111 entered by the rotation restricting projection portions. See page 6 paragraph 6 “the support member 152B partially protrudes in the radial direction at a plurality of locations in the circumferential direction, and the protruding portion is formed in a groove”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is known practice that when forming lengths of cables, wires or rope that individual strands are twisted together forming an overall stronger structure. As such it is expected that one of ordinary skill in the art, when have relied on the history of rope and cable formation, would have realized the advantages of a twisted cable formation. Upon which one merely needs to determine the direction of twist, such as right handed twisting or left handed twisting, and how each would have functioned within the parking brake structure of Iwata et al.
In this situation a person skilled in the art would have looked to rope or cable constructional methods, such as taught in Colmer, Jr., and have realized the benefits and advantages of having the individual cable strands twisted in a direction consistent with a rotating direction of a nut part of a motion conversion mechanism. Colmer, Jr. teaches that having the twisted wire direction be the same as the nut rotation direction prevents or resists turning or rotating the nut when under tension, such as when pulling a connected feature (see column 2 lines 20-66).
It is further noted that only two twist direction scenarios or options exist for the individual wires forming the parking cable, and it stands to reason that one of ordinary skill in the art when faced with the decision of which twist direction to choose one would have chosen the twist direction that is best suited for the parking brake cable. As such the rejection 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 inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Thomas Williams whose telephone number is 571-272-7128.
The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday from 6:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
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.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding
should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-6584.
TJW /THOMAS J WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 July 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights