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 .
This Office Action is in response to papers filed on 4/30/2026. Amendments made to the claims and the Applicant's remarks have been entered and considered.
Claims 1, 2 have been amended.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant's arguments filed 4/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 2, the Applicant argued that amended independent claim 2 require an end shield of the electric drive, explicitly A-side/B-side.
This argument is not persuasive because newly applied Walker et al. (US 6,794,778 B1) shows the braking magnet 42 connected to an end shield H (FIG. 2 below).
The Applicant argued that claim 2 further specify the stationary member being fixed in position with respect to that end shield.
This argument is not persuasive because newly applied Walker et al. (US 6,794,778 B1) shows the braking magnets 48 are fixed in position with respect to the end shield H (FIG. 2 below).
The Applicant argued that, with regard to the feature "continuous, circumferential magnetic surface", amended independent claim 2 requires that the magnet provides the continuous circumferential magnetic surface facing the soft-iron element, whereas Christensen's [EP 3706292 A1] flux ring 16 is disclosed as pure iron and thus is not the claimed magnet body providing the magnetic surface. The flux ring 16 is disclosed as being made of pure iron and functions as a flux-return structure not as the claimed magnet body. Christensen shows 4 single magnets 12-15 and thus not a continuous circumferential surface of a (one, single) magnet. Even if the flux ring 16 forms an annular iron surface facing the ferromagnetic core, that surface is provided by an iron flux-return member, not by the magnet as required by amended independent claim 2.
This argument is not persuasive because Christensen is no longer applied in the rejections, and has been replaced by Sakai.
Regarding claim 1, the Applicant argued that amended independent claim 1 requires a motor end shield and require that the claimed rotating component is arranged on the drive shaft of the electric drive. Sakai's [US 2015/0222168 A1] actuator housing structures and downstream transmission elements do not clearly and unambiguously disclose the claimed A-side/B-side end shield interface of an electric drive, nor do they disclose that the claimed rotating component is arranged on the drive shaft of the electric drive as amended. The ring magnet 34 is described as being included in the transmission member 32 and thus resides in a transmission subassembly rather than being disclosed as fixed in position on the drive shaft of the electric drive in the claimed end-shield. Transmission of motive power does not establish that a component is mounted on the drive shaft of the electric drive. Sakai places its resistance device downstream of the reduction gear in an actuator module.
This argument is not persuasive because newly applied Walker et al. (US 6,794,778 B1) shows the braking magnet 42 on the output shaft 38 connected to an end shield H (FIG. 2).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 12-15, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker et al. (US 6,794,778 B1, hereinafter Walker) in view of Sakai (US 2015/0222168 A1).
As to claim 1, Walker shows (FIG. 2):
PNG
media_image1.png
415
653
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A holding device 42 associated with an electric drive 32 having an end shield H, wherein the end shield H is a drive-side end shield or an output-side end shield of the electric drive 32, the holding device 42 exerts a holding torque on a drive shaft 38 of the electric drive 32 in a static state, wherein the holding device 42 is arranged on the drive shaft of the electric drive and forms a rotating component, wherein the holding device 42 is in connection with the end shield H of the electric drive 32, wherein the braking magnets 48 are fixed in a position with respect to the end shield H; wherein the holding device 42 is configured to maintain a shaft position under an external load (shaft 38 extends beyond housing 36 to drive a gear col.5:18-28 and 38-44; magnet 42 is in connection with end H via shaft 38; maintains shaft position col. 5:53 to 68 capable of holding the shaft 38 under a finite load; the braking magnets 48 are fixed with respect to the end shield H when the motor 32 and the gear enclosure 34 are bolted together as shown in FIG. 1 col.4:63-67, col.5:44-52 ).
Walker does not show:
the holding device comprising a soft iron element with an inner circumference and a magnet, the soft iron element and the magnet being arranged concentrically to one another,
wherein the magnet, in operative connection with the soft iron element, exerts a holding torque on a drive shaft of the electric drive in a static state,
wherein the magnet is arranged on the inner circumference of the soft iron element, and forms a second rotating component,
wherein the holding device is in connection with the end shield of the electric drive,
wherein the soft iron element and the magnet are arranged on the drive shaft of the electric drive,
wherein the soft iron element is fixed in a position with respect to the end shield,
wherein the magnet provides a continuous, circumferential magnetic surface facing the soft iron element, and
wherein the magnet is configured to maintain a shaft position under an external load.
Sakai shows (FIG. 9):
A holding device 31 comprising a soft iron element 33 with an inner circumference and a magnet 34, the soft iron element 33 and the magnet 34 being arranged concentrically to one another,
the magnet 34, in operative connection with the soft iron element 33, exerts a holding torque on a drive shaft 32 in a static state,
the magnet 34 is arranged on the inner circumference of the soft iron element 33, and forms a second rotating component,
the soft iron element 33 is fixed in a position,
the magnet 34 provides a continuous, circumferential magnetic surface facing the soft iron element 33, and
the magnet 34 is configured to maintain a shaft position under an external load (resistance generating devices 1, 31 have same function in the drive unit 100 para[0062],[0063]; FIG. 9 para [0064]; magnetic body 33 is iron para[0042]; resistance generating device 31 is capable of performing the holding function).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the holding device 42 of Walker to have:
the holding device 31 comprising a soft iron element 33 with an inner circumference and a magnet 34, the soft iron element 33 and the magnet 34 being arranged concentrically to one another,
wherein the magnet 34, in operative connection with the soft iron element 33, exerts a holding torque on a drive shaft 38 of the electric drive in a static state,
wherein the magnet 34 is arranged on the inner circumference of the soft iron element 33, and forms a second rotating component,
wherein the holding device 31 is in connection with the end shield H of the electric drive 32,
wherein the soft iron element 33 and the magnet 34 are arranged on the drive shaft 38 of the electric drive 32,
wherein the soft iron element 33 is fixed in a position with respect to the end shield H,
wherein the magnet 34 provides a continuous, circumferential magnetic surface facing the soft iron element 33, and
wherein the magnet 34 is configured to maintain a shaft position under an external load
as taught by Sakai, for the advantageous benefit of a holding device 31 generating a strong holding torque and larger resistance at a decreased manufacturing cost and having an extended life as taught by Sakai (para[0056], advantages [0065]).
As to claim 4/1, Walker in view of Sakai was discussed above with respect to claim 1, and Sakai further shows (as modified FIG. 9) the soft iron element 33 further comprises an outer surface and has a plurality of pole teeth 35 in its inner circumference or on its outer circumference (para [0064]).
As to claim 5/4/1, Walker in view of Sakai was discussed above with respect to claim 4, and Sakai further shows (as modified FIG. 9) the plurality of pole teeth 35 of the soft iron element 33 are matched relative to the number of poles of the magnet 34 (four each).
As to claim 6/4/1, Walker in view of Sakai was discussed above with respect to claim 4, and Sakai further shows (as modified FIG. 9) the pole teeth 35 are preferably arranged at the same angle α to one another and/or have a pole tooth contour (four teeth 35 equally spaced).
As to claim 8/1, Walker in view of Sakai was discussed above with respect to claim 1, and Sakai further shows (as modified FIG. 9) the holding torque is adjusted via the axial length and/or the material selection and/or via an air gap and/or an axial overlap of the rotating component (axial length of protrusions 6 or 35 para [0048]).
As to claim 9/1, Walker in view of Sakai was discussed above with respect to claim 1, and Sakai further shows (as modified FIG. 9):
PNG
media_image2.png
390
410
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a shaft receptacle B is provided in the inner circumference of the rotating component 34.
As to claim 12/1, Walker in view of Sakai was discussed above with respect to claim 1, and Sakai further shows (as modified) the soft iron element 33 is formed of a soft magnetic material (magnetic body 33 is iron that is magnetically conductive para[0042]).
As to claim 13/1, Walker in view of Sakai was discussed above with respect to claim 1, and Walker further shows (as modified FIG. 1, 2) A holding system comprising a holding device 31 according to claim 1 and an electric drive 32, wherein the holding device 1, 31 is operatively connected to the electric drive 32.
As to claim 14/13/1, Walker in view of Sakai was discussed above with respect to claim 13, and Walker further shows (as modified FIG. 1, 2) the electric drive 32 comprises a gearbox 34.
As to claim 15/13/1, Walker in view of Sakai was discussed above with respect to claim 13, and Walker further shows (as modified FIG. 1, 2, 9) the shaft of the holding device 31 corresponds to a drive shaft 38 of the electric drive 32.
As to claim 2, Walker shows (FIG. 2 above) A holding device 42 associated with an electric drive 32 having an end shield H, wherein the end shield H is a drive-side end shield or an output-side end shield of the electric drive 32, wherein the braking magnets 48 are fixed in a position with respect to the end shield H; the holding device 42 exerts a holding torque on a drive shaft 38 of the electric drive 32 in a static state wherein the holding device 42 is in connection with the end shield H of the electric drive 32 and wherein the holding device 42 is configured to maintain a shaft position under an external load (shaft 38 extends beyond housing 36 to drive a gear col.5:18-28 and 38-44; magnet 42 is in connection with end H via shaft 38; maintains shaft position col. 5:53 to 68 capable of holding the shaft 38 under a finite load; the braking magnets 48 are fixed with respect to the end shield H when the motor 32 and the gear enclosure 34 are bolted together as shown in FIG. 1 col.4:63-67, col.5:44-52).
Walker does not show:
the holding device comprising a soft iron element and a magnet with an inner surface, the soft iron element and the magnet being arranged concentrically to one another,
wherein the magnet, in operative connection with the soft iron element, exerts a holding torque on a drive shaft of the electric drive in a static state,
wherein the soft iron element is arranged on the drive shaft of the electric drive, on the inner circumference of the magnet, and forms a first rotating component,
wherein the holding device is in connection with the end shield of the electric drive,
wherein the magnet is fixed in a position with respect to the end shield,
wherein the magnet provides a continuous, circumferential magnetic surface facing the soft iron element,
wherein the magnet is configured to maintain a shaft position under an external load.
Sakai shows (FIG. 4,5):
A holding device 1 comprising a soft iron element 2 and a magnet 3 with an inner surface, the soft iron element 2 and the magnet 3 being arranged concentrically to one another,
the magnet 3, in operative connection with the soft iron element 2, exerts a holding torque on a drive shaft in a static state,
the soft iron element 2 is arranged on the inner circumference of the magnet 3, and forms a first rotating component,
the magnet 3 is fixed in a position,
the magnet 3 provides a continuous, circumferential magnetic surface facing the soft iron element 2, and
the magnet 3 is configured to maintain a shaft position under an external load (FIG. 4 para [0041] to [0042]; magnetic body 2 is iron para[0042]; resistance generating device 1 is capable of performing the holding function).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the holding device 42 of Walker to have:
the holding device 42 comprising a soft iron element 2 and a magnet 3 with an inner surface, the soft iron element 2 and the magnet 3 being arranged concentrically to one another,
wherein the magnet 3, in operative connection with the soft iron element 2, exerts a holding torque on a drive shaft 38 of the electric drive 32 in a static state,
wherein the soft iron element 2 is arranged on the drive shaft 38 of the electric drive 32, on the inner circumference of the magnet 3, and forms a first rotating component,
wherein the holding device 42 is in connection with the end shield H of the electric drive 32,
wherein the magnet 3 is fixed in a position with respect to the end shield H,
wherein the magnet 3 provides a continuous, circumferential magnetic surface facing the soft iron element 2,
wherein the magnet 3 is configured to maintain a shaft position under an external load
as taught by Sakai, for the advantageous benefit of a holding device 31 generating a strong holding torque and larger resistance at a decreased manufacturing cost and having an extended life as taught by Sakai (para[0056], advantages [0065]).
As to claim 16/2, Walker in view of Sakai was discussed above with respect to claim 2, and Sakai further shows (as modified FIG. 4) the soft iron element 2 further comprises an outer surface and has a plurality of pole teeth 6 in its inner circumference or on its outer circumference.
As to claim 17/16/2, Walker in view of Sakai was discussed above with respect to claim 16, and Sakai further shows (as modified FIG. 6) the plurality of pole teeth 14 of the soft iron element 2 are matched relative to the number of poles of the magnet 17 (para [0059]).
As to claim 18/2, Walker in view of Sakai was discussed above with respect to claim 2, and Sakai further shows (as modified FIG. 4) the holding torque is adjusted via the axial length and/or the material selection and/or via an air gap and/or an axial overlap of the rotating component (para[0061]).
As to claim 19/2, Walker in view of Sakai was discussed above with respect to claim 2, and Sakai further shows (as modified FIG. 6) a shaft receptacle 13 is provided in the inner circumference of the rotating component 14 (para[0059]).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker et al. (US 6,794,778 B1, hereinafter Walker) in view of Sakai (US 2015/0222168 A1) and Kolomeitsev (US 6,025,668 A).
As to claim 7/4/1, Walker in view of Sakai was discussed above with respect to claim 4 except for the pole teeth have bevels on their outer circumference.
Kolomeitsev shows (FIG. 4) the pole teeth 22,24 have bevels 22d,24a on their outer circumference (col.6:3-7, 53-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pole teeth 35 of Walker in view of Sakai to have the pole teeth 35 have bevels 22d,24a on their outer circumference as taught by Kolomeitsev, for the advantageous benefit of lower torque ripple as taught by Kolomeitsev (col. 7:48-52).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker et al. (US 6,794,778 B1, hereinafter Walker) in view of Sakai (US 2015/0222168 A1) and Suzuki et al. (US 2020/0067381 A1).
As to claim 10/1, Walker in view of Sakai was discussed above with respect to claim 1 except for a second magnet designed as a sensor magnet.
Suzuki shows (FIG. 3) a magnet designed as a sensor magnet 71 (para[0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric drive 32 of Walker in view of Sakai to have a second magnet designed as a sensor magnet as taught by Suzuki, for the advantageous benefit of detecting a rotational position of the shaft 57 to control the electric drive 110,112 based in the rotational position of the shaft 57 as taught by Suzuki (para[0034]).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker et al. (US 6,794,778 B1, hereinafter Walker) in view of Sakai (US 2015/0222168 A1) and Suzuki et al. (US 2020/0067381 A1).
As to claim 20/2, Walker in view of Sakai was discussed above with respect to claim 2 except for a second magnet designed as a sensor magnet.
Suzuki shows (FIG. 3) a magnet designed as a sensor magnet 71 (para[0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric drive 32 of Walker in view of Sakai to have a second magnet designed as a sensor magnet as taught by Suzuki, for the advantageous benefit of detecting a rotational position of the shaft 5 to control the electric drive 4 based in the rotational position of the shaft 5 as taught by Suzuki (para[0034]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3, 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art does not show or suggest a pinion in combination with the elements recited in claims 1, 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E MATES whose telephone number is (571)270-5293. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 12:00pm to 8pm.
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, TULSIDAS PATEL can be reached at (571)272-2098. 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.
/ROBERT E MATES/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights