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 § 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 2-5, 7-9, 11-12, 15, 18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2-5, 7-9, 11-12 recite the limitation “the ball nut.” While there is sufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, Claim 1: “to be fitted…a ball nut”, the limitation is claimed as functional language, thus it is unclear if the ball nut is intended to be a structural part of the claimed retainer, if it is intended to be is used as a method of limiting the structure of the snap ring part, or if it is intended to be a structural part of the claimed retainer in specific claims. For purposes of examination the ball nut will be considered a part of the claimed retainer structure in every claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “inner race part of the ball return formed on the outer surface of the ball nut.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this claim as Claim 1, the Claim Claim 8 is dependent on, does not recite the ball return being formed on the outer surface of the ball nut. It should be noted that this limitation is first stated in Claim 7, if Claim 8 were dependent on Claim 7 there would be no issue.
Claims 9, 11, 12, 13, 18 recites the limitation “the end portions of the snap ring part.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, thus it is unclear whether this limitation refers to the same structure as “opposed ends defining…of a ball nut” or is intended to refer to a new structure. For purposes of examination “the end portions of the snap ring part” will be interpreted as referring to the same structure as “opposed ends defining…of a ball nut.”
Claims 2 and 15 recite the limitation “the inner surface of the retaining ring portion.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, thus it is unclear if the “retaining ring portion” is intended to refer to the same structure as “an inner surface of the snap ring part.” For purposes of examination, these two limitations will be interpreted as referring to the same structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (KR 20170138660 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses a retainer comprising: a snap ring part (330) substantially discontinuous-ring shaped with opposed ends (333b, 333a) defining a break to be fitted over an outer surface of a ball nut (310); and an outer race part of a ball return formed on an inner surface of the snap ring part to be coupled with an inner race part of the ball return, end portions (333b, 333a) of the outer race part of the ball return to be connected to openings of the ball nut (310) for recirculating balls (see Fig. 5, Fig. 6, [0030-0033]).
Regarding Claim 2, Kim discloses the retainer according to claim 1, wherein the snap ring part (330) is extended further than at least one of the end portions (333b, 333a) of the outer race part of the ball return around the outer surface of the ball nut (310) such that the snap ring part retains the outer race part of the ball return, formed on the inner surface of the retaining ring portion, on the outer surface of the ball nut (310) to be coupled with the inner race part of the ball return (see Fig. 5, Fig. 6, [0030-0033]).
Regarding Claim 4, Kim discloses the retainer according to claim 1, wherein the end portions (333b, 333a) of the outer race part of the ball return protrude from the inner surface of the snap ring part toward the openings (313b, 313a) of the ball nut (310) such that the end portions (333b, 333a) of the outer race part of the ball return are inserted to the openings (313b, 313a) of the ball nut (310) (see Fig. 5, Fig. 6, [0032]).
Regarding Claim 5, Kim discloses the retainer according to claim 1, wherein the outer race part of the ball return formed on the inner surface of the snap ring part comprises at least one of a groove, recess or rail for guiding circulation of the balls (see Fig. 5, Fig. 6, [0030-0033]).
Regarding Claim 6, Kim discloses the retainer according to claim 1, further comprising the inner race part of the ball return coupled with the outer race part of the ball return formed on the inner surface of the snap ring part (see Fig. 5, Fig. 6).
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 1-2, 4-11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Illes (US 20190329815 A1) in view of Asakura (US 20100206656 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Illes discloses A retainer comprising: a snap ring part (26) substantially discontinuous-ring shaped with opposed ends (31, 32) defining a break to be fitted over an outer surface of a ball nut (13); and an outer race part (29) of a ball return to be coupled with an inner race part (27) of the ball return, end portions (30) of the outer race part of the ball return to be connected to openings (27) of the ball nut (13) for recirculating balls (see Fig. 5, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Fig. 8).
Illes does not disclose, in light of the specification, the outer race part (29) being formed on an inner surface of the snap ring part (26).
Asakura teaches outer race part (23) of a ball return formed on an inner surface of part (15) to be coupled with an inner race part (25) of the ball return formed on the outer surface of the ball nut (13) (see Fig. 7, Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to combine the outer race part and corresponding inner race part formed on the surface of the ball nut of Asakura with the snap ring part of Illes in order to improve sound insulation performance, minimize size of the ball nut and retainer structure, and ensure structural strength of the race part to suppress deformation (see US 20100206656 A1 [Asakura]; [0064], [0071-0072]).
Regarding Claim 2, Illes discloses wherein the snap ring part (26) is extended further than at least one of the end portions (30) of the outer race part (29) of the ball return around the outer surface of the ball nut (13) such that the snap ring part (26) retains the outer race part (29) of the ball return, on the outer surface of the ball nut (13) to be coupled with the inner race part of the ball return (see Fig. 5, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Fig. 8
Asakura teaches the outer race part (23) being formed on the inner surface of the retainer (see Fig. 7, Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 4, Illes discloses wherein the end portions (30) of the outer race part (29) of the ball return protrude from the inner surface of the snap ring part (26) toward the openings (27) of the ball nut (13) such that the end portions (30) of the outer race part (29) of the ball return are inserted to the openings (27) of the ball nut (13) (see Fig. 5, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Fig. 8, [0045]).
Regarding Claim 5, Illes discloses wherein the outer race part (29) of the ball return comprises at least one of a groove, recess or rail for guiding circulation of the balls. (see Fig. 7).
Asakura teaches the outer race part (23) of the ball return being formed on the inner surface of retainer (see Fig. 7, Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 6, Illes discloses the inner race part (14) of the ball return coupled with the outer race part (29) of the ball return on the snap ring part (26) (see Fig. 10).
Asakura teaches the inner race part (25) of the ball return coupled with the outer race part (23) of the ball return formed on the inner surface (see Fig. 7, Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 7, Asakura teaches the inner race part (25) of the ball return is formed on the outer surface of the ball nut (13) (see Fig. 7, Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 8, Asakura teaches the inner race part (25) of the ball return formed on the outer surface of the ball nut (13) has a groove or recess for guiding circulation of the balls (see Fig. 7, Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 9, Illes discloses wherein the end portions (31, 32) of the snap ring part (26) are configured to be expandable such that the snap ring part (26) is snapped onto the outer surface of the ball nut (13) through the break defined by the end portions (31, 32) of the snap ring part (26) (see Fig. 5, Fig. 7, [0048]).
Regarding Claim 10, Illes discloses wherein the snap ring part (26) is made of elastically deflectable material (see [0048]).
Regarding Claim 11, Illes discloses wherein a distance between the end portions of the snap ring part (31, 32) is shorter than a diameter of the ball nut (13) (see Fig. 5, Fig. 6, Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 13, Illes discloses wherein a surface of one of the end portions (33, 34) of the snap ring part (26) is slanted with respect to an inner circumferential surface of the snap ring part (26) such that an angle between the surface of one of the end portions (33, 34) of the snap ring part (26) and the inner circumferential surface of the snap ring part (26) is greater than 90 degrees (see Fig. 8, Annotated Fig. 8 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
387
535
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 8
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Illes (US 20190329815 A1) modifed by Asakura (US 20100206656 A1), as applied to Claim 1, above, further in view of Bari (US 20170361866 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Illes modified by Asakura teach the retainer according to Claim 1.
Illes modified by Asakura does not teach the snap ring part encircles around more than half of the outer surface of the ball nut.
Bari teaches a clip retainer (138) that encircles around more than half of the outer surface of the ball nut (see Fig. 2, Fig. 10, Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of the clip retainer size and shape of Bari with the retainer comprising a snap ring part of Illes modified by Asakura in order to improve the security and stability of the snap ring part on the ball nut without the use of welding or screws (see US 20170361866 A1 [Bari]; [0009])
Regarding Claim 12, Bari teaches wherein an inner diameter of a retainer clip is equal to or greater than a diameter of the ball nut (see Fig. 10, Fig. 11).
Claims 14-15, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osterlanger (US 20100236877 A1), in view of Illes (US 20190329815 A1) modified by Asakura (US 20100206656 A1) as applied to Claim 1 and Claim 7, above.
Regarding Claim 14, Osterlanger discloses brake assembly comprising: a ball nut (10) configured to be rotatable by an actuator, a ball screw (7) operably coupled with the ball nut (10), the ball screw (7) configured to be axially translatable relative to the ball nut (10) to move a brake pad (5) according to rotation of the ball nut (10) (see Fig. 1, [0017-0018]).
Osterlanger does not explicitly disclose what the ball return (11) comprises.
Illes modified by Asakura teaches the ball nut (13) comprising an inner race part of a ball return (15) and opening for recirculating balls (16, 17) (see US 20100206656 A1 [Asakura]; Fig. 7, Fig. 8) and a retainer comprising a snap ring part (26) substantially discontinuous-ring shaped with opposed ends (31, 32) (see US 2019329815 A1 [Illes]; Fig. 5, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Fig. 8) defining a break to be fitted over an outer surface of the ball nut (13), and an outer race part (23) (see US 20100206656 A1 [Asakura]; Fig. 7, Fig. 8) of the ball return formed on an inner surface of the snap ring part (26) (see US 2019329815 A1 [Illes]; Fig. 7) and coupled with the inner race part (25) of the ball nut (13) to form the ball return, wherein end portions (19, 20) of the outer race part (25) of the ball return are connected to the openings (16, 17) of the ball nut (13) for recirculating the balls (see US 20100206656 A1 [Asakura]; Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to combine the ball nut and retainer assembly of Illes modified by Asakura with the brake assembly of Osterlanger in order to provide ball recirculation in a sound insulated, weld free, small form factor (see US 20100206656 A1 [Asakura]; [0064], [0071-0072], US 20190329815 A1 [Illes]; Fig. 5, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 15, Illes modified by Asakura teaches wherein the snap ring part (26) is extended further than at least one of the end portions (30) of the outer race part (29) of the ball return around the outer surface of the ball nut (13) such that the snap ring part (26) (see US 2019329815 A1 [Illes]; Fig. 5, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Fig. 8) retains the outer race part (23) of the ball return formed on the inner surface of the retaining ring portion, on the outer surface of the ball nut (13) to be coupled with the inner race part (25) of the ball return (see US 20100206656 A1 [Asakura]; Fig. 7, Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 17, Illes modified by Asakura teaches wherein the end portions (30) of the outer race part of the ball return (29) protrude from the inner surface of the snap ring part (26) toward the openings (27) of the ball nut (13) such that the end portions (30) of the outer race part (29) of the ball return are inserted to the openings (27) of the ball nut (13) (see US 2019329815 A1 [Illes]; Fig. 5, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Fig. 8, [0045]).
Regarding Claim 18, Illes modified by Asakura teaches wherein a distance between the end portions (31, 32) of the snap ring part (26) is shorter than a diameter of the ball nut (13) (see US 2019329815 A1 [Illes]; Fig. 5, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Fig. 8).
Claims 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osterlanger (US 20100236877 A1), modified by the combination of Illes (US 20190329815 A1) and Asakura (US 20100206656 A1) as applied to Claim 14, above, further in view of Bari (US 20170361866 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Osterlanger modified by Illes and Asakura teaches the brake assembly according to Claim 14.
Osterlanger modified by Illes and Asakura does not teach wherein the snap ring part of the retainer encircles around more than a half of the outer surface of the ball nut.
Bari teaches a clip retainer (138) that encircles around more than half of the outer surface of the ball nut (see Fig. 2, Fig. 10, Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of the clip retainer size and shape of Bari with the brake assembly containing a ball nut ball return of Osterlanger modified by Illes and Asakura in order to improve the security and stability of the snap ring part on the ball nut without the use of welding or screws (see US 20170361866 A1 [Bari]; [0009])
Regarding Claim 19, Bari teaches wherein an inner diameter of the snap ring part is equal to or greater than a diameter of the ball nut (see Fig. 10, Fig. 11).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osterlanger (US 20100236877 A1), modified by the combination of Illes (US 20190329815 A1) and Asakura (US 20100206656 A1) as applied to Claim 14, above, further in view of Kim (KR 102411618 B1).
Regarding Claim 20, Osterlanger modified by Illes and Asakura teaches the brake assembly according to Claim 14, wherein the inner race part (25) of the ball return is integrally formed on the outer surface of the ball nut (13) (see US 20100206656 A1 [Asakura]; Fig. 7, Fig. 8).
Osterlanger modified by Illes and Asakura does not teach wherein an inner race of a bearing rotatably supporting the ball nut are integrally formed on the outer surface of the ball nut.
Kim teaches a ball nut in a brake assembly where in an inner race of a bearing (60) rotatably supporting the ball nut (50) is integrally formed on the outer surface of the ball nut (50) (see Fig. 9, [0018]).
It would have been obvious to combine the integral ball nut race and bearing of Kim with the brake assembly containing a ball nut ball return of Osterlanger modified by Illes and Asakura in order to reduce the friction between the bearing and the housing (see KR 102411618 B1 [Kim]; [0018]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shea Irvin whose telephone number is (571)272-9952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 - 17:00.
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.
/S.W.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616