DETAILED ACTION
This is on the merits of Application No. 18/559107, filed on 11/06/2023. Claims 34-66 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 11/06/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 190, 22, 37d, 37e, 59, 416, and 418. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 34, 49, 53-56, 62-64, and 66 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 34 line 5 states “configured to a brake the rotatability” and should state --configured to brake the rotatability--.
Claims 49, 54, 55, 62, and 66 state “the rotary body” and should state --the rotating body--.
Claims 53, 55-56, 62-64 recite the limitation “and/or.” Because each claim can only be drawn to one invention, alternative options must be listed as “at least one of X and Y.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 34-66 are 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.
Claim 34 states “a magnetorheological braking device… comprising:… at least one magnetorheological braking device”. It is unclear how a single braking device can comprise multiple of itself. It this meant to be some other component?
Claim 36 states “the sealing device has an elastic sealing lip”. It is unclear if this is in addition to the “contacting sealing lip” of claim 34, on which claim 36 depends, or a new sealing lip.
Claim 41 states “the sealing device has a non-contact labyrinth seal”. It is unclear if this is in addition to the “contacting sealing lip” of claim 34, on which claim 41 depends, or a new seal. A review of the specification shows that the labyrinth seal is a combination of two seals including the contacting sealing lip of claim 34.
Claim 47 states “wherein the sealing device has at least one sealing gap of less than to the sealing surface”. It is unclear what this limitation is trying to state. What does “less than to the sealing surface” mean? Is this just defining what a gap is?
Claim 59 states “wherein the shielding body surrounds the magnetic ring unit at least on a radial and/or axial outside at least in sections.” This is grammatically confusing as to what the metes and bounds of the claim are. When using “at least” language, only the term “and” should be used to the listed alternatives. Further, is the “at least in sections” for both the radial and axial outside or just the axial outside? It is suggested claim 59 state: --wherein the shielding body surrounds the magnetic ring unit at least in sections on at least one of a radial outside and an axial outside.--
The remaining claims are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
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 34, 40-41, 48, and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jarzomski et al (cited in applicant’s IDS).
Jarzomski discloses:
(Claim 34) A magnetorheological braking device (100) for braking rotary movements, comprising: at least one axle unit (110) and at least one rotating body (140) which is rotatable about the axle unit; at least one magnetorheological braking device configured to a brake the rotatability of the rotating body, said at least one magnetorheological braking device having at least one coil unit (145, par. [0023]); a receiving space (150) being formed between the axle unit and the rotating body, said receiving space being provided with a magnetorheological medium (see par. [0024]), and said magnetorheological medium having magnetorheological particles and gas as a filling medium (see par. [0024], medium comprises magnetically-responsive powder such as iron powder and at least partially fills void 150); and said receiving space being sealed via a sealing device (Figs. 1 and 2A, element 170), and said sealing device having a sealing unit (190) with a contacting sealing lip between the axle unit and the rotating body (par. [0035]).
(Claim 40) wherein the sealing device has at least one non-contact sealing lip (Fig. 2A element 172).
(Claim 41) wherein the sealing device has a non-contact labyrinth seal with at least one sealing gap (Fig. 2A element 171).
(Claim 48) further comprising a core (142) configured to interact with the electric coil unit of the braking device.
(Claim 52) wherein the rotating body is mounted at least partially outside of a housing, and a gap dimension between the rotating body and axle unit remains substantially unchanged when a pressure is applied to the rotating body (Fig. 1, no dimension changes when pressure is applied).
Claims 34, 45, 48-50, and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2020/0355229 to Battlogg(1) (cited in applicant’s IDS).
Battlogg(1) discloses:
(Claim 34) A magnetorheological braking device (Fig. 3) for braking rotary movements, comprising: at least one axle unit (4) and at least one rotating body (3) which is rotatable about the axle unit; at least one magnetorheological braking device (1) configured to a brake the rotatability of the rotating body, said at least one magnetorheological braking device having at least one coil unit (26); a receiving space (5) being formed between the axle unit and the rotating body, said receiving space being provided with a magnetorheological medium, and said magnetorheological medium having magnetorheological particles and gas as a filling medium (see par. [0098]); and said receiving space being sealed via a sealing device (38), and said sealing device having a sealing unit (38) with a contacting sealing lip between the axle unit and the rotating body.
(Claim 45) wherein said magnetorheological particles are predominantly carbonyl iron powder and said magnetorheological particles have a coating against corrosion (see par. [0082]).
(Claim 48) further comprising a core (21) configured to interact with the electric coil unit of the braking device.
(Claim 49) further comprising at least one sensor device (Fig. 10, element 41, 42) configured to detect a rotational position of the rotary body (Par. [0113], angle sensor).
(Claim 50) wherein the sensor device has a sensor adjacent to the receiving space at a connection point outside the receiving space (see Fig. 10).
(Claim 52) wherein the rotating body is mounted at least partially outside of a housing, and a gap dimension between the rotating body and axle unit remains substantially unchanged when a pressure is applied to the rotating body (Fig. 3, no dimension changes when pressure is applied).
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.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarzomski in view of U.S. Patent No. 3415346 to Boeskool et al.
Jarzomski discloses:
The limitations of claim 34.
The contacting seal being a compressed felt or elastomeric seal, or any of a variety of other kinds of sealing elements to prevent further migration of any of the magnetically-responsive medium that is able to pass the magnetic seal (Par. [0035])
Jarzomski does not explicitly disclose:
(Claim 35) wherein the contacting sealing lip is configured to seal the magnetorheological particles within the receiving space without forming a liquid tight seal.
Boeskool teaches:
contacting sealing lip (44) is configured to seal the magnetorheological particles within the receiving space without forming a liquid tight seal (Col. 2 ln 47-70, lip can come loose at high speeds, thus the seal is not liquid tight).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, the structure of Jarzomski to have the contact seal not be liquid tight, as taught by Boeskool, in order to avoid the cost of using liquid tight seals. Jarzomski already discloses using particles for the magnetorheological brake. Jarzomski also already discloses using a seal to hold these particles. Jarzomski does not state whether the seal would be liquid-tight or not. One of ordinary skill would be able to apply the teachings of Boeskool and use a seal that is good enough to retain particles, while not being liquid tight, and produce predictable results.
Claims 36-39, 42-44, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarzomski.
Jarzomski discloses:
The limitations of claim 34.
(Claim 47) wherein the sealing device has at least one sealing gap of less than to the sealing surface (see Fig. 2A gap between 172 and 110. This would apply to any sealing gap).
At least partially filling the void with magnetorheological particles without giving an upper bound limit (Par. [0024]).
Jarzomski does not explicitly disclose:
(Claim 36) wherein the sealing device has an elastic sealing lip with a coverage of less than 0.075 mm.
(Claim 37) wherein an extension of the unloaded elastic sealing lip in the removed state differs from an extension in the installed state less than 0.06 mm.
(Claim 38) wherein a relative difference between an extension of the unloaded sealing lip in the removed state and an extension in the installed state differs by less than 2.5%.
(Claim 39) wherein a sealing surface pressure between the elastic sealing lip and a sealing surface in the installed state is less than 0.075 MPa.
(Claim 42) wherein the receiving space contains more than 40 percent by volume of magnetorheological particles.
(Claim 43) wherein the receiving space is filled with more than 50 percent by volume with magnetorheological particles.
(Claim 44) wherein the receiving space is filled with less than 95 percent by volume with magnetorheological particles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, the structure of Jarzomski to have the elastic sealing lip with a coverage of less than 0.075mm, the unloaded elastic sealing lip differ from an extension in the installed state less than 0.06 mm, and a sealing surface pressure between the elastic sealing lip and a lip sealing surface in the installed state less than 0.075 MPa because it would have been an obvious matter of design choice. Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. Mainly, the length of the seal. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, the structure of Jarzomski to have the receiving space contain more than 40/50/95% by volume with magnetorheological particles since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 36-39 and 42-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Battlogg(1).
Battlogg(1) discloses:
The limitations of claim 34.
At least partially filling the void with magnetorheological particles without giving an upper bound limit (see claim 31).
Battlogg(1) does not explicitly disclose:
(Claim 36) wherein the sealing device has an elastic sealing lip with a coverage of less than 0.075 mm.
(Claim 37) wherein an extension of the unloaded elastic sealing lip in the removed state differs from an extension in the installed state less than 0.06 mm.
(Claim 38) wherein a relative difference between an extension of the unloaded sealing lip in the removed state and an extension in the installed state differs by less than 2.5%.
(Claim 39) wherein a sealing surface pressure between the elastic sealing lip and a sealing surface in the installed state is less than 0.075 MPa.
(Claim 42) wherein the receiving space contains more than 40 percent by volume of magnetorheological particles.
(Claim 43) wherein the receiving space is filled with more than 50 percent by volume with magnetorheological particles.
(Claim 44) wherein the receiving space is filled with less than 95 percent by volume with magnetorheological particles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, the structure of Battlogg(1) to have the elastic sealing lip with a coverage of less than 0.075mm, the unloaded elastic sealing lip differ from an extension in the installed state less than 0.06 mm, and a sealing surface pressure between the elastic sealing lip and a lip sealing surface in the installed state less than 0.075 MPa because it would have been an obvious matter of design choice. Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. Mainly, the length of the seal. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, the structure of Battlogg(1) to have the receiving space contain more than 40/50/95% by volume with magnetorheological particles since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 45-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarzomski in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0283602 to Battlogg(2) (cited in applicant’s IDS).
Jarzomski discloses:
The limitations of claim 34.
An example of the magnetorheological particles being iron powder (Par. [0024]).
Jarzomski does not explicitly disclose:
(Claim 45) wherein said magnetorheological particles are predominantly carbonyl iron powder and said magnetorheological particles have a coating against corrosion.
(Claim 46) wherein the magnetorheological medium comprises graphite.
Battlogg(2) teaches:
(Claim 45) wherein said magnetorheological particles are predominantly carbonyl iron powder and said magnetorheological particles have a coating against corrosion (Par. [0070]).
(Claim 46) wherein the magnetorheological medium comprises graphite (Par. [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, the structure of Jarzomski to use graphite/carbonyl iron powder and a coating against corrosion, as taught by Battlogg(2), in order to reduce the friction between particles. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious choice.
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Battlogg(1) in view of Battlogg(2).
Battlogg(1) discloses:
The limitations of claim 34.
Using carbonyl iron powder.
Battlogg(1) does not explicitly disclose:
(Claim 46) wherein the magnetorheological medium comprises graphite.
Battlogg(2) teaches:
(Claim 46) wherein the magnetorheological medium comprises graphite (Par. [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, the structure of Battlogg(1) to use graphite, as taught by Battlogg(2), in order to reduce the friction between particles. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious choice.
Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Battlogg(1) in view of U.S. Patent No. 600513 to Richards.
Battlogg(1) discloses:
The limitations of claim 49.
Battlogg(1) does not explicitly disclose:
(Claim 51) further comprising a graphite seal axially outside of the sensor device.
Richards teaches:
Using a graphite seal (Col. 3 ln 61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, the structure of Battlogg(1) to have the seal be a graphite seal, as taught by Richards, as an obvious design choice to the type of material wanted out of the seal. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Graphite seals have strong adhesion with metal materials and have good thermal performance.
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Battlogg(1) in view of CN 201166064 to Miao et al.
Battlogg(1) discloses:
(Claim 53) wherein the axle unit has a first axle part (36) and a second axle part (33) connected to one another in the axial direction; and said first axle part is substantially made of a different material (par. [0052]), and said core and/or the coil unit is accommodated on the second axle part.
Battlogg(1) does not explicitly disclose:
(Claim 53) said first axle part is substantially made of a paramagnetic or diamagnetic material.
Miao teaches:
Using a paramagnetic or diamagnetic material for an axle (see claim 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, the structure of Battlogg to have the first axle part substantially made of a paramagnetic or diamagnetic material, as taught by , since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claim 65 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Battlogg(1) in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2002/0057152 to Elferich et al.
Battlogg(1) discloses:
The limitations of claim 49.
Battlogg(1) does not disclose:
(Claim 65) characterized in that the sensor device is configured to detect at least one axial position of the rotating body in relation to the axle unit.
Elferich teaches:
(Claim 65) characterized in that the sensor device is configured to detect at least one axial position of the rotating body in relation to the axle unit (Par. [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, the structure of Battlogg(1) to use Hall sensors that can detect at least one axial position of the rotating body in relation to the axle unit, as taught by Elferich, in order to determine a depressed and non-depressed state of the knob. This would allow for the knob to include more features.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 54-64 and 66 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not disclose nor render obvious the limitations of claim 54. Particularly, wherein said sensor device comprises: at least one magnetic ring unit and at least one magnetic field sensor for detecting a magnetic field of the magnetic ring unit; at least one shielding device configured to at least partially shield the sensor device against magnetic fields, said shielding device having at least one shielding body at least partially surrounding the magnetic ring unit; at least one separating unit between the shielding body and the magnetic ring unit, said separating unit having a lower relative magnetic permeability than the shielding body; and at least one holding device connecting the shielding device to the rotary body in a rotationally fixed manner, said magnetic ring unit being rotationally fixed to the shielding body via the separating unit.
While Battlogg(1) discloses a sensor device, none of the prior art of record disclose nor render obvious the above limitations regarding the sensor device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY HANNON whose telephone number is (571)270-1943. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-6.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/TIMOTHY HANNON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655