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 .
______________________________
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on November 13, 2023 and November 29, 2023 were previously considered by the examiner and remain of record.
______________________________
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.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Indefiniteness - Braking Surface Includes a Braking Surface
Claim 23, as amended, recites "wherein the braking surface includes a machined braking surface." This language is unclear because it recites a braking surface that itself includes a braking surface. It is unclear whether applicant intends to claim that the flange part includes a machined braking surface, that the previously recited braking surface is machined, or that a separate braking-surface component is included in another structure. The amendment also removed the prior relative term issue associated with "finely," but the current wording does not clearly identify the structure being modified.
Suggested Correction
Applicant may amend claim 23 to recite, for example, "wherein the flange part includes a machined braking surface" or "wherein the braking surface is machined."
Status of Other 112 Issues
No rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 112(d), or 112(f) is made in this action. The prior 112(a) rejection of claim 26 and the prior 112(b) rejections of claims 25 and 31 are withdrawn for the reasons set forth below.
______________________________
REFERENCES USED
Reference 1 - WO 2016/173687 A1, Transmission system. https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2016173687A1/en?oq=2016173687
Reference 2 - WO 2018/072885 A1, Transmission having a shaft, a housing part and an adapter housing. https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2018072885A1/en?oq=2018072885
Reference 3 - US 8,615,976 B1, Electric motor clutch/brake assembly.
Reference 4 - CN 204371992 U, Band encoder roller disc brake. https://patents.google.com/patent/CN204371992U/en?oq=204371992
Reference 5 - DE 3205980 C2, Electromagnetic holding brake. https://patents.google.com/patent/DE3205980A1/en?oq=de3205980
Reference 6 - DE 10 2009 007558 A1, Transmission with clutch. https://patents.google.com/patent/DE102009007558A1/en?oq=102009007558
Reference 7 - US 2010/0032247 A1, Stacker crane.
______________________________
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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim 14
A brake assembly, comprising: a transmission including a housing part and an input shaft; an adapter including an adapter housing connected to the housing part of the transmission, the adapter housing accommodating at least one bearing adapted to rotatably mount the input shaft of the transmission; and a brake including a flange part and a cover part, the flange part connected to the adapter housing on a side of the adapter housing facing away from the transmission, the cover part connected to the flange part; wherein the flange part includes a braking surface.
Analysis
Reference 1 teaches a transmission system having a transmission with housing part 16 and shaft 12. Reference 1 teaches that shaft 12 carries toothed part 15 engaged with a further toothed part of the transmission, thereby teaching the claimed input shaft and transmission torque path. Reference 1 further teaches a brake arranged on the shaft, including braking surface part 3, bearing flange 1, cover part 2, coil core 5, coil winding 6, brake pad carrier 7, armature plate 8, and hood part 17.
Reference 1 teaches the claimed brake including a flange part and a cover part. In particular, Reference 1's brake-side flange structure is taught by bearing flange 1 and braking surface part 3, with braking surface part 3 providing the braking surface facing brake pad carrier 7. Reference 1 also teaches hood part 17/cover part 2 connected with the brake-side flange structure to enclose and support the brake components. Thus, Reference 1 teaches a flange part that includes a braking surface, as now recited in amended claim 14.
Reference 1 does not expressly disclose the claimed intermediate adapter housing connected to the transmission housing part and accommodating a bearing adapted to rotatably mount the input shaft. Reference 2 teaches housing part 1, adapter housing 2 connected to housing part 1, first bearing 27 accommodated in adapter housing 2, and shaft 25 mounted by the bearing. Reference 2 therefore teaches the claimed adapter including an adapter housing connected to the housing part of the transmission and accommodating at least one bearing adapted to rotatably mount the input shaft.
In the resulting combination, the bearing-carrying adapter housing of Reference 2 is placed between the transmission housing and the brake-side flange/braking-surface structure of Reference 1. The transmission and brake are taught by Reference 1, the adapter housing and bearing support are taught by Reference 2, and the brake-side flange structure of Reference 1, including braking surface part 3, is connected on the side of the adapter housing facing away from the transmission.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine References 1 and 2 because Reference 1 teaches a compact brake associated with a transmission shaft and Reference 2 teaches a known adapter housing with a dedicated bearing for supporting a shaft at a transmission interface. The combination makes mechanical sense because adding Reference 2's adapter housing and bearing to Reference 1's brake/transmission package would predictably improve shaft support near the brake, provide a modular connection between the brake and transmission, and maintain alignment between the shaft, brake flange, and braking surface. The fact that an adapter may add a discrete component does not teach away from the combination because the claim itself requires an adapter, and Reference 2 expressly teaches that adapter-bearing structure for the same type of transmission-interface function.
______________________________
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim 15
The brake assembly according to claim 14, wherein a first toothed part is rotationally fixed to the input shaft of the transmission and is in engagement with another toothed part of the transmission.
Analysis
Claim 15 depends from claim 14. The limitations of claim 14 are taught or rendered obvious as set forth above. Reference 1 teaches toothed part 15 rotationally fixed to shaft 12 and engaged with a further toothed part of the transmission. Thus, Reference 1 teaches the first toothed part rotationally fixed to the input shaft and engaged with another toothed part.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to retain Reference 1's toothed transmission torque path when adding the adapter housing of Reference 2 because toothed part 15 is part of the normal shaft/transmission power-transfer arrangement. Retaining that feature preserves the operating principle of Reference 1 while Reference 2 improves the shaft support/interface structure.
______________________________
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim 16
The brake assembly according to claim 14, wherein the cover part together with the flange part form a housing.
Analysis
Claim 16 depends from claim 14. The limitations of claim 14 are taught or rendered obvious as set forth above. Reference 1 teaches hood part 17/cover part 2 surrounding the brake components and cooperating with bearing flange 1/braking surface part 3 to enclose the brake region. The cover and flange structures together form the brake housing.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to retain Reference 1's cover-and-flange housing arrangement when adding Reference 2's adapter because the housing protects the coil, armature, brake pad carrier, and braking-surface components while preserving the compact packaged brake layout.
______________________________
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim 17
The brake assembly according to claim 15, wherein the cover part together with the flange part form at least part of a housing.
Analysis
Claim 17 depends from claim 15. The limitations of claims 14 and 15 are taught or rendered obvious as set forth above. Reference 1 teaches hood part 17/cover part 2 and bearing flange 1/braking surface part 3 cooperating to enclose the brake region. That structure forms at least part of a housing.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to retain the cover-and-flange housing function of Reference 1 in the combined assembly because the cover and flange provide protection, alignment, and support for the brake components while Reference 2's adapter provides shaft support at the transmission interface.
______________________________
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim 18
The brake assembly according to claim 14, wherein a tappet is rotationally fixed to the input shaft, a brake pad carrier is rotationally fixed to the tappet and is axially movable relative to a magnet body of the brake, the magnetic body of the brake is rotationally fixed to the flange part, an energizable coil is accommodated in the magnet body, an armature disk is arranged axially between the brake pad carrier and the magnet body, the armature disk is rotationally fixed to the magnet body and is arranged to be axially movable relative to the magnet body, and spring elements supported on the magnet body press onto the armature disk.
Analysis
Claim 18 depends from claim 14. The limitations of claim 14 are taught or rendered obvious as set forth above. Reference 1 teaches shaft 12, brake pad carrier 7, coil core/magnet body 5, coil winding 6, armature plate 8, spring elements, and associated rotational/axial relationships for applying and releasing the brake. Reference 1 teaches the brake pad carrier and armature arrangement moving axially relative to the magnet body and being rotationally constrained as part of the brake operation.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to retain Reference 1's electromagnetic brake structure in the combined assembly because that structure is the braking mechanism that provides holding/braking force on the transmission shaft. Adding Reference 2's adapter housing would not change the known brake actuation relationship between the brake pad carrier, magnet body, armature disk, coil, and spring elements.
______________________________
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim 19
The brake assembly according to claim 18, wherein the brake pad carrier is movable back and forth relative to the magnet body of the brake.
Analysis
Claim 19 depends from claim 18. The limitations of claim 18 are taught or rendered obvious as set forth above. Reference 1 teaches brake pad carrier 7 axially movable relative to coil core/magnet body 5 during brake engagement and release. This axial movement is movement back and forth relative to the magnet body.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to retain the back-and-forth axial movement of Reference 1's brake pad carrier because that movement is necessary for the electromagnetic brake to engage and release. The adapter housing of Reference 2 supports the shaft/interface and does not require changing the brake pad carrier's operating motion.
______________________________
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim 20
The brake assembly according to claim 18, wherein the armature disk is movable back and forth.
Analysis
Claim 20 depends from claim 18. The limitations of claim 18 are taught or rendered obvious as set forth above. Reference 1 teaches armature plate 8 arranged for axial movement relative to coil core/magnet body 5 as the brake engages and releases. The armature disk is therefore movable back and forth.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to retain Reference 1's axially movable armature disk because that movement is the ordinary way the electromagnetic brake transitions between engaged and released states. Reference 2's adapter housing improves shaft support without changing that brake actuation principle.
______________________________
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim 21
The brake assembly according to claim 18, wherein the armature disk is rotationally fixed to the magnet body and is arranged to be axially movable relative to the magnet body by bolts projecting through cutouts in the armature disk and fixed to the magnet body.
Analysis
Claim 21 depends from claim 18. The limitations of claim 18 are taught or rendered obvious as set forth above. Reference 1 teaches armature plate 8 guided relative to coil core/magnet body 5 and constrained against rotation while being axially movable. Reference 1's fastening/guide arrangement for the armature and magnet body teaches or suggests bolts or comparable guide elements projecting through armature cutouts and fixed to the magnet body to allow axial movement while preventing relative rotation.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use bolts or guide elements fixed to the magnet body and passing through armature cutouts because that is a predictable way to keep an armature rotationally fixed while allowing axial brake engagement/release movement. This preserves Reference 1's brake function while using Reference 2's adapter for shaft support.
______________________________
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 5.
Claim 23
The brake assembly according to claim 14, wherein the braking surface includes a machined braking surface.
Analysis
Claim 23 depends from claim 14. The limitations of claim 14 are taught or rendered obvious as set forth above. Reference 1 teaches braking surface part 3 providing the braking surface for brake pad carrier 7. Reference 5 teaches an electromagnetic holding brake having a brake/friction surface formed and finished for braking engagement. Reference 5 therefore teaches providing the braking surface as a machined braking surface suitable for controlled frictional braking.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to machine the braking surface of Reference 1's braking surface part 3 in view of Reference 5 because brake friction surfaces require controlled shape, flatness, and finish to provide predictable braking contact and wear behavior. Applying a known machined braking surface to the brake flange/braking-surface structure of Reference 1 would have predictably improved braking consistency in the combined brake/transmission assembly.
______________________________
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim 24
The brake assembly according to claim 18, wherein the input shaft projects through the magnet body.
Analysis
Claim 24 depends from claim 18. The limitations of claim 18 are taught or rendered obvious as set forth above. Reference 1 teaches shaft 12 extending through the brake structure, including through the region of coil core/magnet body 5, so that the brake acts on the rotating shaft/brake pad carrier arrangement.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to retain Reference 1's shaft-through-magnet-body arrangement because the brake is arranged around and acts on the transmission shaft. This arrangement is compatible with Reference 2's adapter housing and bearing support at the transmission interface.
______________________________
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 4.
Claim 25
The brake assembly according to claim 24, wherein an angle sensor is connected and/or arranged inside the cover part on an end region of the input shaft facing away from the adapter housing.
Analysis
Claim 25 depends from claim 24. The limitations of claim 24 are taught or rendered obvious as set forth above. Reference 4 teaches an angle/encoder sensor associated with a brake/shaft arrangement for measuring shaft rotation. In the combined assembly, arranging an angle sensor at the end region of the input shaft inside the cover part is a predictable placement for sensing shaft angle while keeping the sensor protected within the brake cover.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to add Reference 4's angle sensor to the shaft end region of the brake/transmission assembly of References 1 and 2 because shaft-angle sensing provides useful position feedback for control, monitoring, and diagnostics. Placing the sensor inside the cover protects the sensor and uses available packaging space at the shaft end facing away from the adapter housing.
______________________________
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 4.
Claim 26
The brake assembly according to claim 25, wherein a sensor shaft of the angle sensor is rotationally fixed to the input shaft, and a housing of the angle sensor is connected to the magnet body and/or is connected to the cover part.
Analysis
Claim 26 depends from claim 25. The limitations of claim 25 are taught or rendered obvious as set forth above. Reference 4 teaches an angle/encoder sensor coupled to a rotating shaft/brake assembly to detect angular position. A sensor shaft rotationally fixed to the input shaft is the expected mechanical relationship for measuring shaft angle, and mounting the sensor housing to a stationary brake component such as the magnet body or cover part provides the fixed reference needed for angle measurement.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to rotationally fix the sensor shaft to the input shaft and mount the sensor housing to the magnet body or cover because an angle sensor requires a rotating input coupled to the measured shaft and a stationary reference housing. Applying Reference 4's angle-sensing arrangement to the brake/transmission assembly of References 1 and 2 would have predictably provided shaft-position feedback without changing the braking mechanism.
______________________________
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim 27
The brake assembly according to claim 14, wherein the brake is connected directly to the transmission via the adapter.
Analysis
Claim 27 depends from claim 14. The limitations of claim 14 are taught or rendered obvious as set forth above. The combined assembly connects Reference 1's brake structure to the transmission through Reference 2's adapter housing 2. No intervening motor is required between the brake and the transmission in that arrangement.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to connect the brake directly to the transmission via Reference 2's adapter because the adapter is specifically provided at the transmission interface and supports the shaft near the connected structure. This direct modular connection preserves compact packaging and predictable alignment between the brake and transmission.
______________________________
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim 28
The brake assembly according to claim 27, wherein no motor or electric motor is interposed between the brake and the transmission.
Analysis
Claim 28 depends from claim 27. The limitations of claim 27 are taught or rendered obvious as set forth above. Reference 1 teaches a brake associated with the transmission shaft, and the combined arrangement uses Reference 2's adapter housing at the transmission interface. The rejection does not require a motor or electric motor between the brake and transmission.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to omit an interposed motor between the brake and transmission in the combined arrangement because the purpose of the combination is to support the brake/transmission shaft interface, not to add a separate motor stage. Omitting such a motor preserves compactness and direct braking of the transmission shaft.
______________________________
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 3.
Claim 29
The brake assembly according to claim 14, wherein a terminal box is attached to an outside of the cover part, supply lines of the brake being led out to the terminal box.
Analysis
Claim 29 depends from claim 14. The limitations of claim 14 are taught or rendered obvious as set forth above. Reference 1 teaches electrical leads for coil winding 6 routed outward from the brake structure. Reference 3 teaches terminal box assembly 80 attached to an outside of upper housing 56 for routing and protecting electrical connections. Applying Reference 3's terminal box to the cover of the combined brake assembly provides the claimed outside terminal box and supply-line routing.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to route Reference 1's brake supply lines to an external terminal box as taught by Reference 3 because terminal boxes protect wiring, organize connections, and improve service access. This modification is compatible with the cover-and-flange brake housing of Reference 1 and the adapter connection of Reference 2.
______________________________
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 3.
Claim 30
The brake assembly according to claim 14, wherein the supply lines of the brake are arranged as supply lines of a coil of the brake.
Analysis
Claim 30 depends from claim 14. The limitations of claim 14 are taught or rendered obvious as set forth above. Reference 1 teaches coil winding 6 and electrical lines for supplying that coil. Reference 3 teaches routing electrical supply lines to an outside terminal box. Thus, in the combined assembly, the brake supply lines are arranged as supply lines of the brake coil.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to connect the externally routed terminal-box wiring to Reference 1's brake coil because coil winding 6 is the electrical load of the electromagnetic brake. The terminal box of Reference 3 provides a predictable and serviceable external connection point for those coil supply lines.
______________________________
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 3.
Claim 31
The brake assembly according to claim 14, wherein the adapter housing is formed of two parts, the bearing accommodated in the adapter housing is adapted to center, in relation to each other, the two parts of the adapter housing that form the adapter housing, one of the two parts connected to the flange part.
Analysis
Claim 31 depends from claim 14. The limitations of claim 14 are taught or rendered obvious as set forth above. Reference 2 teaches adapter housing 2 and bearing 27 at the transmission interface. Reference 3 teaches a two-piece housing arrangement including upper housing 56 and lower housing 57 with bearing support and brake-related structure. It would have been a predictable construction choice to form the adapter housing of Reference 2 in two parts and use the accommodated bearing as a centering/alignment feature between those parts, with the brake-side part connected to the flange part of the brake.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form the adapter housing of Reference 2 as a two-part housing in view of Reference 3 because two-part housings simplify assembly around a shaft/bearing/brake interface and allow one part to connect to the brake-side flange while the bearing maintains concentricity. This modification predictably improves assembly and alignment without changing the brake or transmission function.
______________________________
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 6.
Claim 32
The brake assembly according to claim 14, wherein the adapter housing includes a cuboidal region.
Analysis
Claim 32 depends from claim 14. The limitations of claim 14 are taught or rendered obvious as set forth above. Reference 6 teaches a transmission housing having cuboidal housing sections and bearing-support structure. Applying a cuboidal region to Reference 2's adapter housing is a predictable housing-shape selection for stiffness, mounting surfaces, bearing support, and packaging at a transmission interface.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to configure Reference 2's adapter housing with a cuboidal region as taught by Reference 6 because cuboidal housing regions provide flat mounting faces, structural stiffness, and room for bearing/fastener geometry. This is a routine housing-design choice for transmission and brake-interface assemblies.
______________________________
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 7.
Claim 33
A storage and retrieval device, comprising: the brake assembly as recited in claim 14; and a wheel arranged as a lateral guide rotationally fixed to an output shaft of the transmission.
Analysis
Reference 7 teaches stacker crane C in automated warehouse S, including lower frame 10, masts 20, upper frame 30, floor rails R1 and R2, ceiling rail R3, wheels 1, motors 2, and guide rollers 1b. Reference 7 teaches lateral guide wheels/rollers that guide the stacker crane along rails and deter lateral tilting. Combining the brake/transmission assembly of References 1 and 2 with the storage and retrieval device of Reference 7 renders obvious a storage and retrieval device having the claimed brake assembly and a lateral guide wheel rotationally fixed to an output shaft of the transmission.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use the compact brake/transmission assembly of References 1 and 2 in the storage and retrieval device of Reference 7 because guided rail vehicles require controlled motion, braking, and holding at guide/drive wheels. The combination predictably supplies braking/holding capability to the guided wheel arrangement of the stacker crane.
______________________________
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 7.
Claim 34
The device according to claim 33, wherein the wheel is arranged as a guide wheel.
Analysis
Claim 34 depends from claim 33. The limitations of claim 33 are taught or rendered obvious as set forth above. Reference 7 expressly teaches guide rollers 1b and guide rollers at upper frame 30 for guiding the stacker crane relative to rails. A guide roller is a guide wheel within the scope of the claim.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to arrange the wheel as a guide wheel because Reference 7 uses guide rollers/wheels to laterally guide the storage and retrieval device along rails. The brake/transmission assembly of References 1 and 2 is predictably applied to that guided wheel environment.
______________________________
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 7.
Claim 35
The device according to claim 33, wherein the wheel is arranged on a top side of a frame of the storage and retrieval device.
Analysis
Claim 35 depends from claim 33. The limitations of claim 33 are taught or rendered obvious as set forth above. Reference 7 teaches upper frame 30 at the top of stacker crane C and a guide roller arranged at the upper frame to engage ceiling rail R3 and deter tilting. Thus, Reference 7 teaches a guide wheel arranged on a top side of the frame.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to locate the guide wheel at the top side of the frame because Reference 7 uses an upper guide roller and ceiling rail to stabilize the stacker crane against tilting. Using the brake/transmission assembly with that upper guide-wheel arrangement would have predictably provided controlled guide-wheel motion or holding.
______________________________
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 7.
Claim 36
The device according to claim 33, wherein a drive wheel adapted to be driven by an electric drive is arranged on a bottom side of the frame of the storage and retrieval device.
Analysis
Claim 36 depends from claim 33. The limitations of claim 33 are taught or rendered obvious as set forth above. Reference 7 teaches wheels 1 arranged on lower frame 10 and driven by motors 2 to move stacker crane C along rails R1 and R2. Thus, Reference 7 teaches an electrically driven drive wheel arranged on the bottom side of the frame.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to retain Reference 7's bottom drive wheels and electric motors while applying the brake/transmission assembly of References 1 and 2 because Reference 7's lower drive wheels provide propulsion and the brake/transmission package provides predictable braking/holding or torque transmission in the same guided-vehicle environment.
______________________________
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 7.
Claim 37
The device according to claim 36, wherein the drive wheel is arranged as a rail wheel, and the storage and retrieval device is arranged as a rail vehicle.
Analysis
Claim 37 depends from claim 36. The limitations of claim 36 are taught or rendered obvious as set forth above. Reference 7 teaches wheels 1 running on floor rails R1 and R2 and stacker crane C traveling along those rails. Thus, the drive wheel is a rail wheel and the storage and retrieval device is arranged as a rail vehicle.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use the rail-wheel/rail-vehicle arrangement of Reference 7 because that is the ordinary travel arrangement for the disclosed stacker crane. Applying the brake/transmission assembly of References 1 and 2 to that rail-guided device would have predictably provided braking and controlled motion for the rail vehicle.
______________________________
Withdrawn Rejections
The prior rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is withdrawn. Applicant has identified original claim 6 as written-description support for the sensor shaft rotationally fixed to the shaft and the sensor housing connected to the magnetic body and/or cover part. Original claims are part of the original disclosure, and the identified original claim language reasonably conveys possession of the subject matter recited in claim 26.
The prior rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn because applicant amended claim 25 to recite an angle sensor that is connected and/or arranged inside the cover part, rather than merely connectable and/or arrangeable.
The prior rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn because applicant deleted the unclear phrase "having a braking surface of the brake" from the end of claim 31.
______________________________
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive with respect to the maintained rejections.
Applicant requests withdrawal of the prior 112(a) rejection of claim 26 based on original claim 6. That argument is persuasive for the reasons stated in the withdrawn-rejections section above, and the prior 112(a) rejection of claim 26 is withdrawn.
Applicant argues that claims 23, 25, and 31 have been amended in a self-explanatory manner and that the prior 112(b) rejections are moot. This argument is persuasive as to claims 25 and 31, but not persuasive as to claim 23. Claim 25 no longer merely recites an angle sensor that is connectable and/or arrangeable, and claim 31 no longer ends with the unclear "having a braking surface of the brake" phrase. However, claim 23 as amended recites that "the braking surface includes a machined braking surface," which does not clearly identify the structure being modified and renders the claim indefinite for the reasons set forth above.
Applicant argues that several relied-upon documents are foreign-language documents and requests translations and corrected listing of the references. Applicant's request is acknowledged. The material facts relied upon from the references are stated in English in this action. A corrected reference listing is provided with this action identifying the relied-upon references, including the references to Huang, Winkelmann, and Bender. To the extent any foreign-language document is relied upon, the corresponding English-language publication information or translation is made of record with the action so the record clearly identifies the facts relied upon. Links to the translations have been provide above in the references section.
Applicant argues that amended claim 14 is patentable because the combination of Triebswetter and Schmidt allegedly lacks a flange part that includes a braking surface and is connected to an adapter housing on a side facing away from the transmission. The argument is not persuasive. Reference 1 teaches braking surface part 3 and bearing flange 1 as the brake-side flange/braking-surface structure of the electromagnetic brake, with braking surface part 3 providing the braking surface facing brake pad carrier 7. Reference 2 teaches adapter housing 2 connected to housing part 1 and accommodating bearing 27 for supporting shaft 25. The rejection does not rely on Reference 2 for the braking surface; Reference 1 supplies that structure. Reference 2 supplies the adapter housing and bearing interface that are combined with Reference 1's brake/transmission structure.
Applicant further argues that adding Reference 2's adapter housing would lengthen and complicate Reference 1's device and therefore undermines the motivation to combine. The argument is not persuasive because obviousness does not require bodily incorporation of one reference into the other without ordinary engineering adaptation. Claim 14 itself requires an adapter housing. Reference 2 teaches precisely such an adapter housing and bearing at a transmission interface. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized the adapter as a known modular support structure that improves shaft support, bearing placement, alignment, and assembly at the brake/transmission interface. Any added component count is an ordinary design tradeoff, not a teaching away from the claimed adapter.
Applicant's arguments concerning claims 15-21, 23-32, and 33-37 are not persuasive because those arguments depend primarily on the asserted deficiency of the base combination for claim 14. As explained above, the base combination of References 1 and 2 teaches or renders obvious amended claim 14. The additional references are applied only for the narrower dependent limitations, including the angle sensor, machined braking surface, terminal box, two-part housing, cuboidal region, and storage/retrieval device features.
______________________________
Claim Disposition
Claims 14-21 and 23-37 are pending.
Claims 1-13 and 22 are canceled.
Claims 14, 23, 25, and 31 have been amended.
Rejected Claims
Under 35 U.S.C. 112(b): Claim 23.
Under 35 U.S.C. 103: Claims 14-21 and 23-37.
Objected To Claims
None.
Allowed Claims
None.
______________________________
Finality of Action
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
______________________________
Conclusion
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claims 14-21 and 23-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the reasons set forth above.
No more than the references needed for the maintained rejections are relied upon in this action. The references not used for a particular claim are omitted from that claim's rejection because the base combination of References 1 and 2 addresses amended independent claim 14, and the additional references are used only where their narrower teachings are needed for dependent limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON C SMITH whose telephone number is (703)756-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Joseph Morano can be reached at (571) 272-6684. 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.
/Jason C Smith/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights