DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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 (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 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, 2, and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (KR20140146353A).
Re claim 1, Choi et al. disclose a solenoid actuator comprising: a bobbin (40) having a through hole formed inside the bobbin, wherein a coil (48) is wound around the bobbin; a case (10) surrounding an outer surface of the bobbin; a drive part (20) movably disposed in the through hole of the bobbin to be drivable; a core (56) fixedly disposed above the drive part; and a return spring (60) disposed between the drive part and the core and configured to apply an elastic force to the drive part in a direction of being away from the core, wherein the bobbin has a damper (70) positioned between the case and the drive part, and the damper is formed integrally with the bobbin as a single piece. (Fig. 1)
Re claim 2, Choi et al. disclose wherein: the case (10) includes a body (30) surrounding an outer side surface of the bobbin (40), an extension part (65) extending inward from the body in a radial direction and surrounding an end of the bobbin, and an inner part extending from the extension part in an axial direction such that the inner part of the case is inserted into the through hole of the bobbin, and the damper (70) is provided between an end of the inner part of the case inserted in the through hole of the bobbin and the drive part.
Re claim 4, Choi et al. disclose a drive rod (50) configured to be movable by the drive part (20).
Re claim 5, Choi et al. disclose a drive rod (50) fixedly coupled to the drive part (20).
Re claim 6, Choi et al. disclose a first bush (80) positioned between the drive rod (50) and the inner part of the case inserted in the through hole of the bobbin (40), wherein the first bush is disposed in a first opening formed inside the inner part of the case inserted in the through hole of the bobbin.
Re claim 7, Choi et al. disclose a second bush (81) positioned between the drive rod (50) and the core (56).
Re claim 8, Choi et al. disclose, wherein the body, the extension part, and the inner part of the case are integrally formed as a single piece (10, 30, 65).
Claims 1, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Spratte et al. (DE102015204104A1).
Re claim 1, Spratte et al. disclose a solenoid actuator comprising: a bobbin (110) having a through hole formed inside the bobbin, wherein a coil (111) is wound around the bobbin; a case (358, 342) surrounding an outer surface of the bobbin; a drive part (114) movably disposed in the through hole of the bobbin to be drivable; a core (230, 232) fixedly disposed above the drive part; and a return spring (354) disposed between the drive part and the core and configured to apply an elastic force to the drive part in a direction of being away from the core, wherein the bobbin has a damper (120, 122, 352) positioned between the case and the drive part. (Fig. 3)
Re claim 9, Spratte et al. disclose wherein: an end of the drive part (114) has a first inclined portion and an end of the core (230, 232) has a second inclined portion inclined at an angle corresponding to the first inclined portion of the drive part such that one of the first inclined portion of the drive part and the second inclined portion of the core is insertable into another of the first inclined portion of the drive part and the second inclined portion of the core. (Fig. 3)
Re claim 10, Spratte et al. disclose wherein the damper is formed by a protruded part (122) of the bobbin (110) inwardly protruding from an inner surface of the through hole of the bobbin to be between the case and the drive part (114).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (KR20140146353A) in view of Young et al. (US 20060054851 A1).
Re claim 3, Choi et al. teach wherein: the drive part (20) includes a large diameter part inserted in the through hole of the bobbin and a small diameter part having a diameter smaller than a diameter of the large diameter part, the small diameter part is inserted in the inner part of the case inserted in the through hole of the bobbin. Choi et al. do not teach wherein the damper is configured to be contactable with a stepped portion of the drive part formed by the large diameter part and the small diameter part. Young et al. each a solenoid actuator wherein: the drive part (108) includes a large diameter part and a small diameter part having a diameter smaller than a diameter of the large diameter part, a damper (120) is configured to be contactable with a stepped portion of the drive part formed by the large diameter part and the small diameter part. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the drive part and damper as configured by Young et al. in order to reduce noise. (Fig. 1, [0004], [0022])
Claims 12, 13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murgoci (DE 102011080714A1) in view of Choi et al. (KR20140146353A) or Spratte et al. (DE102015204104A1).
Re claim 12, Murgoci teaches a brake system comprising a ratchet unit configured to prevent reverse brake operation, wherein the ratchet unit includes: a pawl (128) configured to engageable with a ratchet gear (116) configured to be rotatable according to a force generated by a motor (8); and a solenoid actuator (122) configured to move the pawl. (Fig. 3)
Murgoci does not teach wherein the solenoid actuator includes: a bobbin having a through hole formed inside the bobbin, wherein a coil is wound around the bobbin; a case surrounding an outer surface of the bobbin; a drive part movably disposed in the through hole of the bobbin to be drivable; a core fixedly disposed above the drive part; and a return spring disposed between the drive part and the core and configured to apply an elastic force to the drive part in a direction of being away from the core, and the bobbin has a damper positioned between the case and the drive part.
Choi et al. teach a solenoid actuator comprising: a bobbin (40) having a through hole formed inside the bobbin, wherein a coil (48) is wound around the bobbin; a case (10) surrounding an outer surface of the bobbin; a drive part (20) movably disposed in the through hole of the bobbin to be drivable; a core (56) fixedly disposed above the drive part; and a return spring (60) disposed between the drive part and the core and configured to apply an elastic force to the drive part in a direction of being away from the core, wherein the bobbin has a damper (70) positioned between the case and the drive part and the damper is formed integrally with the bobbin as a single piece. (Fig. 1)
Spratte et al. teach a solenoid actuator comprising: a bobbin (110) having a through hole formed inside the bobbin, wherein a coil (111) is wound around the bobbin; a case (358, 342) surrounding an outer surface of the bobbin; a drive part (114) movably disposed in the through hole of the bobbin to be drivable; a core (230, 232) fixedly disposed above the drive part; and a return spring (354) disposed between the drive part and the core and configured to apply an elastic force to the drive part in a direction of being away from the core, wherein the bobbin has a damper (120, 122, 352) positioned between the case and the drive part and the damper is formed integrally with the bobbin as a single piece.. (Fig. 3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the solenoid actuator of Choi et al or Sprattle et al. in the device of Murgoci in order to provide actuation to the brake system. (Choi et al. – Fig. 1)
Re claim 13, Murgoci as modified teaches wherein: the case (10) includes a body (30) surrounding an outer side surface of the bobbin (40), an extension part (65) extending inward from the body in a radial direction and surrounding an end of the bobbin, and an inner part extending from the extension part in an axial direction such that the inner part of the case is inserted into the through hole of the bobbin, and the damper (70) is provided between an end of the inner part of the case inserted in the through hole of the bobbin and the drive part. (Choi et al. – Fig. 1)
Re claim 15, Murgoci as modified teaches a drive rod (50) configured to be movable by the drive part (20). (Choi et al. – Fig. 1)
Re claim 16, Murgoci as modified teaches a drive rod (50) fixedly coupled to the drive part (20). (Choi et al. – Fig. 1)
Re claim 17, Murgoci as modified teaches a first bush (80) positioned between the drive rod (50) and the inner part of the case inserted in the through hole of the bobbin (40), wherein the first bush is disposed in a first opening formed inside the inner part of the case inserted in the through hole of the bobbin. (Choi et al. – Fig. 1)
Re claim 18, Murgoci as modified teaches a second bush (81) positioned between the drive rod (50) and the core (56). (Choi et al. – Fig. 1)
Re claim 19, Murgoci as modified teaches wherein: an end of the drive part (114) has a first inclined portion and an end of the core (230, 232) has a second inclined portion inclined at an angle corresponding to the first inclined portion of the drive part such that one of the first inclined portion of the drive part and the second inclined portion of the core is insertable into another of the first inclined portion of the drive part and the second inclined portion of the core. (Sprattle et al. - Fig. 3)
Re claim 20, Murgoci as modified teaches wherein the damper is formed by a protruded part (122) of the bobbin (110) inwardly protruding from an inner surface of the through hole of the bobbin to be between the case and the drive part (114). (Sprattle et al. - Fig. 3)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murgoci (DE 102011080714A1) in view of Choi et al. (KR20140146353A) and further in view of Young et al. (US 20060054851 A1).
Re claim 14, Choi et al. teach wherein: the drive part (20) includes a large diameter part inserted in the through hole of the bobbin and a small diameter part having a diameter smaller than a diameter of the large diameter part, the small diameter part is inserted in the inner part of the case inserted in the through hole of the bobbin.
Choi et al. do not teach wherein the damper is configured to be contactable with a stepped portion of the drive part formed by the large diameter part and the small diameter part. Young et al. each a solenoid actuator wherein: the drive part (108) includes a large diameter part and a small diameter part having a diameter smaller than a diameter of the large diameter part, a damper (120) is configured to be contactable with a stepped portion of the drive part formed by the large diameter part and the small diameter part. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the drive part and damper as configured by Young et al. in order to reduce noise. (Fig. 1, [0004], [0022]). (Fig. 1, [0022])
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 25, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that neither Choi et al. nor Sprattle et al. teach wherein “the damper is formed integrally with the bobbin as a single piece.” It is the Examiner’s position that as assembled, both Choi et al. and Sprattle et al. can be interpreted as having a damper formed integrally with the bobbin as a single piece. Applicant’s arguments are more specific than the claim language. Therefore, the rejections are 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 MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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.
/MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
MTWAugust 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights