DETAILED ACTION
The following is a response to the amendment filed 5/27/2026 which has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 40 and 42-79 are pending in the application. Claim 41 is cancelled and claim 79 is new.
-The drawing objection has been withdrawn (in part) due to applicant amending the drawings and specification accordingly (the drawings have been approved).
-The claim objection has been withdrawn due to applicant amending claim 43 accordingly.
-The 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn due to applicant amending claims 41, 43, 51, 52, 67, 73, 75, 77 and 78 accordingly.
Response to Arguments
-Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 65 has been fully considered and is persuasive. The 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
-Applicant’s argument that “paragraph ([0071] in Battolgg) does not discuss the field strength between the particles or the field strength in the gap. Rather, Battlogg is discussing the coercive field strength of the permanent magnet (permanent magnets are materials with high coercive field strength). The field strength H [A/m] is the physical property of a field, a vector quantity. The coercive field strength He is a material property. The coercive field strength refers to the magnetic field strength required to completely demagnetize a ferromagnetic material that has been previously magnetized to its saturation flux density. Thus, the reference does not disclose and/or suggest the feature for which it is cited.”, has been acknowledged. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive, therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection has been made.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the two brake components are pivotable relative to one another as recited in claim 60 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 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.
Claim(s) 79 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Piech et al 20110114421. Piech discloses a device with a magnetorheological braking device for braking relative movements, comprising: at least two braking components (36/38, 40); a receiving space with a braking gap (39) being formed between the at least two braking components, containing a magnetorheological medium with magnetically polarizable particles ([0026]) that can be influenced by a magnetic field; at least one core (34) and at least one electric coil unit (35) being configured to generate a controllable magnetic field in the brake gap; and at least some of the magnetically polarizable particles being configured to form an engagement structure and latch together under the influence of the magnetic field ([0026]-[0027]), and a magnetic field strength greater than 150 kA/m can be generated in the braking gap ([0027] describes that a magnetic field of 200-300 kA/m can solidify fluid 30 which is within gap 39).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 40, 43-50, 52-55, 57-62, 66, 68-74, 76 and 77 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Battlogg 20160153508 (previously cited) in view of DE 102020106328 (IDS cited art with machine translation) and Wolfrum et al 20130112912 (previously cited). As to claim 40, Battlogg discloses a device with a magnetorheological braking device for braking relative movements, comprising: at least two braking components (2, 3; Figure 3); a receiving space (5) with a braking gap being formed between the at least two braking components, containing a magnetorheological medium with magnetically polarizable particles (19) that can be influenced by a magnetic field ([0209]); at least one core ([0146]) and at least one electric coil unit (7) being configured to generate a controllable magnetic field (8) in the brake gap; and at least some of the magnetically polarizable particles being configured to form an engagement structure and latch together under the influence of the magnetic field ([0198], chain together), but doesn’t disclose a magnetic field strength between individual magnetically polarizable particles of the magnetically polarizable particles being greater than 500 kA/m.
DE discloses a device with a magnetorheological braking device for braking relative movements and shows that it is well known in the art to provide particles with a magnetic field strength greater than 500 kA/m (page 6, last paragraph to page 7, line 2, describe magnetic field applied can be up to 1000 kA/m in which the field would be between each particle to perform latching).
Wolfrum et al discloses a device with a magnetorheological braking device for braking relative movements ([0123] describes that fluid can be used for braking) and shows that it is well known in the art to provide particles with a magnetic field strength greater than 500 kA/m ([0061], lines 3-6; [0066], lines 7-11; [0094], lines 15-21 describe magnetic field applied can be between 0.6 to 1.3 tesla which equals 477 to 1034 kA/m in which the field would be between each particle to perform latching).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the particles in Battlogg with a magnetic field strength greater than 500 kA/m in view of DE and Wolfrum to enhance the fluid/particle shearing strength and viscosity which increases braking torque during operation of device.
As to claim 43, Battlogg in view of Wolfrum discloses magnetically polarizable particles are non- round particles and a ratio of a largest diameter the particles to the largest transverse extent perpendicular thereto is greater than 1.25 or 1.5 (2 to 50 in Wolfrum).
As to claim 44, Battlogg in view of Wolfrum disclose wherein at least some of the magnetically polarizable particles are configured to latch together over a large area under the influence of the magnetic field (as shown in Figure 2 in Wolfrum).
As to claim 45, Battlogg in view of Wolfrum disclose wherein at least some of the magnetically polarizable particles are configured to latch together under the influence of the magnetic field at two or more locations spaced apart from one another (as shown in Figure 2 in Wolfrum).
As to claim 46, Battlogg in view of Wolfrum disclose wherein at least some of the magnetically polarizable particles have at least one trough section (as shown in Figure 2 in Wolfrum).
As to claim 47, Battlogg in view of Wolfrum disclose wherein at least some of the magnetically polarizable particles have an angled structural section (as shown in Figure 2 in Wolfrum).
As to claim 48, Battlogg in view of Wolfrum disclose wherein: at least some of the magnetically polarizable particles have a projection or edge portion; at least some of the magnetically polarizable particles have a recess or trough portion; and the projection or edge portion of at least one particle interlocks with the recess or trough portion; and the projection or edge portion of at least one particle interlocks with the recess or trough portion of another particle (as shown in Figure 2 in Wolfrum).
As to claim 49, Battlogg discloses wherein at least one surface of at least one braking component adjoining the braking gap is at least partially non-smooth and has elevations and/or depressions configured to reinforce an engagement with the particles ([0038]; [0090]).
As to claim 50, Battlogg in view of DE and Wolfrum discloses wherein a magnetic field strength greater than 150 kA/m can be generated in the braking gap (page 6, last paragraph to page 7, line 2, describe magnetic field applied can be up to 1000 kA/m in which the field would be between each particle to perform latching in DE and [0061], lines 3-6; [0066], lines 7-11; [0094], lines 15-21 describe magnetic field applied can be between 0.6 to 1.3 tesla which equals 477 to 1034 kA/m in which the field would be between each particle to perform latching in Wolfrum).
As to claim 52, Battlogg discloses wherein a minimum gap height of the braking gap between the braking components is greater than twice ([0042]) a maximum transverse extension perpendicular to the maximum diameter of the magnetically polarizable particles in the braking gap.
As to claim 53, Battlogg in view of Wolfrum discloses wherein at least 25% of the magnetically polarizable particles have a ratio of maximum diameter to maximum transverse extension greater than 1.25 (2 to 50 in Wolfrum).
As to claim 54, Battlogg in view of Wolfrum discloses wherein at least 50% of the magnetically polarizable particles have a ratio of maximum diameter to maximum transverse extension greater than 1.25 (2 to 50 in Wolfrum).
As to claim 55, Battlogg discloses wherein at least 25% of the magnetically polarizable particles have a maximum diameter and/or maximum transverse extension of at least 10 pm ([0040]).
As to claim 57, Battlogg discloses further comprising a load sensor and/or a force sensor ([0069]).
As to claim 58, Battlogg discloses further comprising at least one position sensor ([0069]).
As to claim 59, Battlogg discloses further comprising a control unit (27) configured for controlling the electrical coil unit.
As to claim 60, Battlogg discloses wherein the two brake components are pivotable relative to one another and/or are continuously rotatable relative to one another ([0074]).
As to claim 61, Battlogg discloses wherein one brake component has an inner component (2), the other component has an outer component (3), and the outer component at least partially surrounds the inner component radially (as shown in Figure 3).
As to claim 62, Battlogg discloses wherein the inner component is coupled to an axle unit ([0002], lines 7-9).
As to claim 66, Battlogg discloses wherein the braking gap completely surrounds the inner component and the braking gap is configured as a circumferential annular gap (gap 5 surrounds component 2 annularly as shown in Figures 1 and 3).
As to claim 68, Battlogg discloses wherein the two brake components are at least partially linearly movable relative to each other (as shown in Figures 4 and 5).
As to claim 69, Battlogg discloses further comprising at least one rotary body (11) arranged in a gap portion of the braking gap.
As to claim 70, Battlogg discloses wherein the magnetorheological medium has at least one liquid as a carrier medium in which the magnetically polarizable particles are accommodated, and the magnetically polarizable particles make up between 25 and 50 percent by volume in the receiving space ([0021] describes particles within medium being greater than 20%).
As to claim 71, Battlogg discloses wherein the magnetorheological medium has at least one gas ([0191]) as the carrier medium surrounding the magnetically polarizable particles, and the magnetically polarizable particles make up between 40 and 90 percent by volume in the receiving space ([0021] describes particles within medium being greater than 20%).
As to claim 72, Battlogg discloses further comprising an operating element connected to the magnetorheological braking device (Figure 12; [0224]).
As to claim 73, Battlogg discloses wherein the operating element has a control roller and/or a control button (Figure 13; [0229]), and the magnetorheological braking device is at least partially accommodated inside the operating element.
As to claim 74, Battlogg discloses wherein the operating element has an outer diameter of less than 75 mm ([0008], lines 5-8 describe outer diameter of system at 42mm).
As to claim 76, Battlogg discloses a method for braking relative movements of at least two braking components (2, 3) of a magnetorheological braking device, comprising: providing an electric coil unit (7), and a receiving space (5) with a braking gap formed between the braking components; providing a magnetorheological medium in the receiving space that can be influenced by a magnetic field and has magnetically polarizable particles (19) therein; and generating a magnetic field in the braking gap with the electric coil unit, and under the influence of the magnetic field, forming an
engagement structure in the braking gap and wedging magnetically polarizable particles thereon ([0198]; chain together), but doesn’t disclose a magnetic field strength between individual magnetically polarizable particles of the magnetically polarizable particles being greater than 500 kA/m.
DE discloses a device with a magnetorheological braking device for braking relative movements and shows that it is well known in the art to provide particles with a magnetic field strength greater than 500 kA/m (page 6, last paragraph to page 7, line 2, describe magnetic field applied can be up to 1000 kA/m in which the field would be between each particle to perform latching).
Wolfrum et al discloses a device with a magnetorheological braking device for braking relative movements ([0123] describes that fluid can be used for braking) and shows that it is well known in the art to provide particles with a magnetic field strength greater than 500 kA/m ([0061], lines 3-6; [0066], lines 7-11; [0094], lines 15-21 describe magnetic field applied can be between 0.6 to 1.3 tesla which equals 477 to 1034 kA/m in which the field would be between each particle to perform latching).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the particles in Battlogg with a magnetic field strength greater than 500 kA/m in view of DE and Wolfrum to enhance the fluid/particle shearing strength and viscosity which increases braking torque during operation of device.
As to claim 77, Battlogg in view of DE and Wolfrum discloses wherein the magnetic field strength between individual magnetically polarizable of the magnetically polarizable particles is greater than 500 kA/m (page 6, last paragraph to page 7, line 2, describe magnetic field applied can be up to 1000 kA/m in which the field would be between each particle to perform latching in DE and [0061], lines 3-6; [0066], lines 7-11; [0094], lines 15-21 describe magnetic field applied can be between 0.6 to 1.3 tesla which equals 477 to 1034 kA/m in which the field would be between each particle to perform latching in Wolfrum).
Claim(s) 40, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 72 and 76 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Battlogg 20180073590 (previously cited) in view of DE 102020106328 (IDS cited art with machine translation) and Wolfrum et al 20130112912 (previously cited). As to claim 40, Battlogg discloses a device with a magnetorheological braking device for braking relative movements, comprising: at least two braking components (2, 3; Figure 2; [0067], lines 1-3); a receiving space (6) with a braking gap being formed between the at least two braking components, containing a magnetorheological medium with magnetically polarizable particles ([0021]; [0043]) that can be influenced by a magnetic field (abstract); at least one core (7) and at least one electric coil unit (18) being configured to generate a controllable magnetic field in the brake gap; and at least some of the magnetically polarizable particles being configured to form an engagement structure and latch together under the influence of the magnetic field ([0021]; interlink particles together) but doesn’t disclose a magnetic field strength between individual magnetically polarizable particles of the magnetically polarizable particles being greater than 500 kA/m.
DE discloses a device with a magnetorheological braking device for braking relative movements and shows that it is well known in the art to provide particles with a magnetic field strength greater than 500 kA/m (page 6, last paragraph to page 7, line 2, describe magnetic field applied can be up to 1000 kA/m in which the field would be between each particle to perform latching).
Wolfrum et al discloses a device with a magnetorheological braking device for braking relative movements ([0123] describes that fluid can be used for braking) and shows that it is well known in the art to provide particles with a magnetic field strength greater than 500 kA/m ([0061], lines 3-6; [0066], lines 7-11; [0094], lines 15-21 describe magnetic field applied can be between 0.6 to 1.3 tesla which equals 477 to 1034 kA/m in which the field would be between each particle to perform latching).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the particles in Battlogg with a magnetic field strength greater than 500 kA/m in view of DE and Wolfrum to enhance the fluid/particle shearing strength and viscosity which increases braking torque during operation of device.
As to claim 43, Battlogg in view of Wolfrum discloses magnetically polarizable particles are non- round particles and a ratio of a largest diameter the particles to the largest transverse extent perpendicular thereto is greater than 1.25 or 1.5 (2 to 50 in Wolfrum).
As to claim 44, Battlogg in view of Wolfrum disclose wherein at least some of the magnetically polarizable particles are configured to latch together over a large area under the influence of the magnetic field (as shown in Figure 2 in Wolfrum).
As to claim 45, Battlogg in view of Wolfrum disclose wherein at least some of the magnetically polarizable particles are configured to latch together under the influence of the magnetic field at two or more locations spaced apart from one another (as shown in Figure 2 in Wolfrum).
As to claim 46, Battlogg in view of Wolfrum disclose wherein at least some of the magnetically polarizable particles have at least one trough section (as shown in Figure 2 in Wolfrum).
As to claim 47, Battlogg in view of Wolfrum disclose wherein at least some of the magnetically polarizable particles have an angled structural section (as shown in Figure 2 in Wolfrum).
As to claim 48, Battlogg in view of Wolfrum disclose wherein: at least some of the magnetically polarizable particles have a projection or edge portion; at least some of the magnetically polarizable particles have a recess or trough portion; and the projection or edge portion of at least one particle interlocks with the recess or trough portion; and the projection or edge portion of at least one particle interlocks with the recess or trough portion of another particle (as shown in Figure 2 in Wolfrum).
As to claim 49, Battlogg discloses wherein at least one surface of at least one braking component adjoining the braking gap is at least partially non-smooth and has elevations and/or depressions configured to reinforce an engagement with the particles ([0038]; [0090]).
As to claim 50, Battlogg in view of DE and Wolfrum discloses wherein a magnetic field strength greater than 150 kA/m can be generated in the braking gap (page 6, last paragraph to page 7, line 2, describe magnetic field applied can be up to 1000 kA/m in which the field would be between each particle to perform latching in DE and [0061], lines 3-6; [0066], lines 7-11; [0094], lines 15-21 describe magnetic field applied can be between 0.6 to 1.3 tesla which equals 477 to 1034 kA/m in which the field would be between each particle to perform latching in Wolfrum).
As to claim 53, Battlogg in view of Wolfrum discloses wherein at least 25% of the magnetically polarizable particles have a ratio of maximum diameter to maximum transverse extension greater than 1.25 (2 to 50 in Wolfrum).
As to claim 54, Battlogg in view of Wolfrum discloses wherein at least 50% of the magnetically polarizable particles have a ratio of maximum diameter to maximum transverse extension greater than 1.25 (2 to 50 in Wolfrum).
As to claim 57, Battlogg discloses further comprising a load sensor and/or a force sensor ([0117]).
As to claim 58, Battlogg discloses further comprising at least one position sensor (17).
As to claim 59, Battlogg discloses further comprising a control unit ([0082]-[0083]) configured for controlling the electrical coil unit.
As to claim 60, Battlogg discloses wherein the two brake components are pivotable relative to one another and/or are continuously rotatable relative to one another (abstract)
As to claim 61, Battlogg discloses wherein one brake component has an inner component (2), the other component has an outer component (3), and the outer component at least partially surrounds the inner component radially (as shown in Figure 2).
As to claim 62, Battlogg discloses wherein the inner component is coupled to an axle unit (abstract).
As to claim 63, Battlogg discloses wherein the electrical coil unit is wound radially or axially around the core (Figure 4; 18).
As to claim 64, Battlogg discloses wherein the core has at least one radially projecting arm (21, 22, 23) around which at least one winding of the electrical coil unit is wound (as shown in Figure 4).
As to claim 65, Battlogg discloses wherein the core has a plurality of radially outwardly extending arms and intermediate sections (35) between the arms, the arms are made of a material with a higher magnetic permeability relative to the magnetic permeability of the intermediate sections, and a ratio of the magnetic permeability of an arm to a magnetic permeability of an intermediate section is greater than 100 (based on 35 being an empty space, it would be obvious for the arm permeability to be greater than 100 over 35 permeability).
As to claim 66, Battlogg discloses wherein the braking gap (6) completely surrounds the inner component and the braking gap is configured as a circumferential annular gap (as shown in Figure 4).
As to claim 67, Battlogg discloses wherein at least one brake component (2) has a star contour (as shown in Figure 4) which projects towards the other brake component (3) and which generates/provides a gap height that is variable over the circumference or length of the brake gap (if eccentric component is used with 4; [0157]).
As to claim 72, Battlogg discloses further comprising an operating element connected to the magnetorheological braking device (Figures 7, 8 and 11).
As to claim 76, Battlogg discloses a method for braking relative movements of at least two braking components (2, 3) of a magnetorheological braking device, comprising: providing an electric coil unit (18), and a receiving space (6) with a braking gap formed between the braking components; providing a magnetorheological medium in the receiving space that can be influenced by a magnetic field and has magnetically polarizable particles ([0021]; [0043]) therein; and generating a magnetic field in the braking gap with the electric coil unit, and under the influence of the magnetic field,
forming an engagement structure in the braking gap and wedging magnetically polarizable particles thereon ([0021]; interlink particles together), but doesn’t disclose a magnetic field strength between individual magnetically polarizable particles of the magnetically polarizable particles being greater than 500 kA/m.
DE discloses a device with a magnetorheological braking device for braking relative movements and shows that it is well known in the art to provide particles with a magnetic field strength greater than 500 kA/m (page 6, last paragraph to page 7, line 2, describe magnetic field applied can be up to 1000 kA/m in which the field would be between each particle to perform latching).
Wolfrum et al discloses a device with a magnetorheological braking device for braking relative movements ([0123] describes that fluid can be used for braking) and shows that it is well known in the art to provide particles with a magnetic field strength greater than 500 kA/m ([0061], lines 3-6; [0066], lines 7-11; [0094], lines 15-21 describe magnetic field applied can be between 0.6 to 1.3 tesla which equals 477 to 1034 kA/m in which the field would be between each particle to perform latching).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the particles in Battlogg with a magnetic field strength greater than 500 kA/m in view of DE and Wolfrum to enhance the fluid/particle shearing strength and viscosity which increases braking torque during operation of device.
Claim(s) 75 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Battlogg ‘508 in view of DE’328, Wolfrum’912 and Kintz 20030071238 (previously cited IDS art). Battlogg discloses a device for braking relative movements, comprising: at least two braking components (2, 3); a receiving space (5) with a braking gap between the at least two braking components; a magnetorheological medium with magnetically polarizable particles (19) inside of the braking gap; at least one electric coil unit (7) being configured to generate a controllable magnetic field in the brake gap configured to influence the magnetorheological medium; and a minimum gap height of the braking gap between the braking components ([0052] describes that design options are available); however, Battlogg doesn't disclose the height as less than five times a mean diameter of the magnetically polarizable particles in the braking gap, and/or Battlog discloses that the magnetically polarizable particles are non-round ([0006], lines 3-5 describe particles as non-uniform); that the particles have a ratio of a maximum diameter to however, Battlogg doesn't disclose a maximum transverse extent perpendicular thereto is greater than 1.25 or 1.5. Battlogg further doesn’t disclose a magnetic field strength between individual magnetically polarizable particles of the magnetically polarizable particles being greater than 500 kA/m.
Kintz discloses a magnetorheological device that can be used for brakes and shows that it is well known in the art to provide a gap height ([0029], lines 9-18; 0.08 to 0.75mm) less than five times the mean diameter of the magnetically polarizable particles in the braking gap (6 to 100um).
DE discloses a device with a magnetorheological braking device for braking relative movements and shows that it is well known in the art to provide particles with a magnetic field strength greater than 500 kA/m (page 6, last paragraph to page 7, line 2, describe magnetic field applied can be up to 1000 kA/m in which the field would be between each particle to perform latching).
Wolfrum discloses a magnetorheological device that can be used for brakes and shows that it is well known in the art to provide non-round particles in the device having a ratio of the maximum diameter to a maximum transverse extent perpendicular thereto is greater than 1.25 or 1.5 (ratio is 2 to 50; abstract) and shows that it is well known in the art to provide particles with a magnetic field strength greater than 500 kA/m ([0061], lines 3-6; [0066], lines 7-11; [0094], lines 15-21 describe magnetic field applied can be between 0.6 to 1.3 tesla which equals 477 to 1034 kA/m in which the field would be between each particle to perform latching).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Battlog with minimum gap height less than five times the mean diameter of the particles in view of Kintz to avoid slipping between particles causing magnetic output interruption and reducing wear between particles.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Battlog with a diameter to
transverse particle ratio as recited in view of Wolfrum to provide a stronger magnetic response behavior during operation of device.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the particles in Battlogg with a magnetic field strength greater than 500 kA/m in view of DE and Wolfrum to enhance the fluid/particle shearing strength and viscosity which increases braking torque during operation of device.
Claim(s) 42, 51, 56 and 78 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Battlogg’508 in view of DE’328, Wolfrum’912 as applied to claims 40 and 76 above, and further in view of Kintz’238. Battlogg in view of DE and Wolfrum discloses a minimum gap height (via 5 in Battlogg) and non-round particles ([0006], lines 3-5 in Battlogg), but doesn't disclose the limitations as recited in the above claims pertaining to gap size, gap height, particle size and particle concentration as recited.
As to claim 42, Kintz shows that it is well known in the art to provide a magnetorheological device that can be used for braking with a minimum gap height of the braking gap ([0029], lines 9-18; 0.08 to 0.75mm) between the braking components is less than five times a mean diameter of a typical magnetically polarizable particle (6 to 100 um) in the braking gap.
As to claim 51, Kintz discloses wherein a minimum gap height of the braking gap between the braking components ([0029], lines 9-18; 0.08 to 0.75mm) is smaller than five times the largest diameter (6 to 100 um) of the magnetically polarizable particles in the braking gap.
As to claim 56, Kintz discloses wherein at least 25% of the magnetically polarizable particles have a maximum diameter of at least 30 um (6 to 100 um).
As to claim 78, Kintz discloses wherein the particle concentration in the brake gap is greater than 40% ([0039], 5 to 50%).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Battlog in view of DE and Wolfrum with magnetorheological device pertaining to gap size, particle size and particle concentration as recited further in view of Kintz to avoid slipping between particles causing magnetic output interruption, reducing wear between particles and to provide a stronger magnetic response behavior during operation of device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Battlogg 20210278872 discloses a device with a magnetorheological braking device (abstract) and shows that it is well known in the art to provide particles with a magnetic field strength greater than 500 kA/m ([0056] describe magnetic field applied can be up to 1000 kA/m in which the field would be between each particle to perform latching).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TISHA D LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7093. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30am to 5:00pm.
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, Anna M Momper can be reached at 571-270-5788. 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.
Tdl
/TISHA D LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 August 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights