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 12/18/2025. Amendments made to the claims and the Applicant's remarks have been entered and considered.
Claims 1, 9-11 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/18/2025, with respect to the Drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Objection to the Drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 1, 3-6, 8, 9, 12-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Newly applied Sakai (US 2015/0222168 A1) shows the claimed subject matter.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 2, the Applicant argued that Christensen [EP 3706292 A1] merely describes an electric drive system with a magnetic brake system, not a holding system, but it does not contain a description of a holding device element with a soft iron element and a magnet that are arranged concentrically to each other and connected to an end shield of an electric drive. According to claim 2 of the claimed invention, the holding device is necessary connected to one of the end shields of an electric drive… Christensen merely describes a system which generates a magnetic braking force through the interaction between the teeth of the ferromagnetic core and the permanent magnets. A (separate) holding device connected with the end shield of an electric drive is in no way described.
Christensen does not disclose any kind of an end shield or an integration thereof. Christensen does not describe that a ferromagnetic core and permanent magnets are in connection with an end shield of an electric drive. [T]his is a different and alternative solution of a brake and not a holding device in the sense of claim 2 of the invention.
This argument is not persuasive because the magnetic braking arrangement of Christensen results in a torsional force opposing rotation of the ferromagnetic core 11 and urging it to a stationary position in which teeth 9 are between magnets 12-15. Thus the magnetic braking arrangement is a holding device tending to hold the ferromagnetic core 11 in one position see para[0061].
The Applicant also argued Christensen does not mention that the ferromagnetic core is implemented as a "first rotating component" that is connected to the end shield and does not nor describe a concentric arrangement of a soft magnetic element (ferromagnetic core) and a magnet, as described in claim 2.
The magnet holder 17 comprises a flux ring and several magnets 12, 13, 14 and 15. This is a different assembly in view of the claimed invention. The invention does not have or need a flux ring and has a whole element working as a magnet. Therefore, the provision of a holding torque (approximately by a larger magnet) can be adjusted according to claim 2 and the invention.
This argument is not persuasive because claim 2 does not require the rotating component to be connected to the end shield and the recited magnet is not limited to a single magnet. The magnetic braking arrangement of Christensen includes parts that are not recited in claim 2, but shows all the features of claim 2. Also, Christensen shows the ferromagnetic core 11 coupled to the shaft 5 to rotate in unison therewith see FIG. 4, para [0049]. Christensen also shows multiple permanent magnets 12-15 arranged in recesses in a flux ring 16 around the ferromagnetic core 11 to interact therewith see para [0050],[0052]. The permanent magnets 12-15 are arranged adjacent to the housing 10 see para [0050]. The flux ring 16 with the permanent magnets 12-15 is shown in FIG. 4 (below) attached to an end shield S of the housing 10 by a bar B:
PNG
media_image1.png
550
857
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Christensen (EP 3706292 A1).
As to claim 2, Christensen shows (FIG. 2-5) a holding device 11,17 associated with an electric drive 4 having an end shield 6, the holding device 11,17 comprising a soft iron element 11 and a magnet 17 with an inner surface, the soft iron element 11 and the magnet 17 being arranged concentrically to one another, wherein the magnet 17, in operative connection with the soft iron element 11, exerts a holding torque on a shaft 5 in a static state, wherein the soft iron element 11 is arranged on the shaft 5, on the inner circumference of the magnet 17, and forms a first rotating component, and wherein the holding device 11,17 is in connection with the end shield 6 of the electric drive 4 (para[0055], magnetic force opposing rotational movement para[0061]; soft iron para[0070]).
As to claim 16/2, Christensen further shows (FIG. 2-5) the soft iron element 11 further comprises an outer surface and has a plurality of pole teeth 9 in its inner circumference or on its outer circumference.
As to claim 17/16/2, Christensen further shows (FIG. 2-5) the plurality of pole teeth 9 of the soft iron element 11 are matched relative to the number of poles of the magnet 17 (four teeth 9, four magnets 12-15).
As to claim 18/2, Christensen further shows (FIG. 2-5) 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 (the torsional force opposing rotation is created when the teeth 9 are located between permanent magnets 12-15 when they axially overlap para[0061]).
As to claim 19/2, Christensen further shows (FIG. 2-5) a shaft receptacle 21 is provided in the inner circumference of the rotating component 11 (para[0055]).
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, 3-6, 8, 9, 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai (US 2015/0222168 A1).
As to claim 1, Sakai shows (FIGs. 2B, 9):
PNG
media_image2.png
535
812
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A holding device 31 associated with an electric drive 110,112 having an end shield S, 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 132, in operative connection with the soft iron element 33, exerts a holding torque on a shaft 111 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 S of the electric drive 110 (resistance generating devices 1, 31 have same function in the drive unit 100 para[0062],[0063]; resistance generating device 31 is connected to the end shield S when connected to the motor 110 para[0035]; FIG. 9 para [0064]; magnetic body 33 is iron para[0042]; resistance generating device 31 is capable of performing the holding function).
Sakai does not show the magnet is arranged on the shaft, the soft iron element and the magnet are arranged on the shaft.
Sakai shows the resistance generating device 51 including the transmission members 53, 54 are arranged on the shaft 57 (FIG. 11, 14 para [0069],[0070]).
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 31 of Sakai to have the magnet is arranged on the shaft 57, the soft iron element 33 and the magnet 34 are arranged on the shaft 57 as taught by Sakai, for the advantageous benefit of rotatably supporting the soft iron element and the magnet as taught by Sakai (col. 7:48-52).
As to claim 3/1, Sakai further shows (FIG. 2B as modified) the holding device 31 is operatively connected to a pinion 112 which is provided on the shaft 57 and is covered by the end shield S (the resistance generating device 1,31 is connected to the reduction gear 112 para [0035]).
As to claim 4/1, Sakai further shows (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, Sakai further shows (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, Sakai further shows (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, Sakai further shows (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, Sakai further shows (FIG. 9)
PNG
media_image3.png
390
410
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a shaft receptacle B is provided in the inner circumference of the rotating component 34.
As to claim 12/1, Sakai further shows 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, Sakai further shows (FIG. 2B above) A holding system comprising a holding device 1, 31 according to claim 1 and an electric drive 110,112, wherein the holding device 1, 31 is operatively connected to the electric drive 110,112 (transmits rotary motion para[0035],[0062],[0063]).
As to claim 14/13/1, Sakai further shows (FIG. 2, 13) the electric drive 110.112 comprises a gearbox 112 (planetary gear para [0035]).
As to claim 15/13/1, Sakai further shows (FIG. 2B as modified) the shaft 57 of the holding device 31 corresponds to a drive shaft of the electric drive 110,112 (the resistance generating device 1 transmits rotary motion of the motor 110 para[0035]).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai (US 2015/0222168 A1) in view of Kolomeitsev (US 6,025,668 A).
As to claim 7/4/1, 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 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 Sakai (US 2015/0222168 A1) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2020/0067381 A1).
As to claim 10/1, 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 110,112 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) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai (US 2015/0222168 A1) in view of Egawa (US 3,601,640 A).
As to claim 11/3/1, Sakai was discussed above with respect to claim 3 except for the soft iron element or the magnet is pressed onto the shaft or the pinion.
Egawa shows (FIG. 1) the magnet is pressed onto the shaft (col.2:1-6).
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 31 of Sakai to have the soft iron element or the magnet 34 is pressed onto the shaft 57 or the pinion as taught by Egawa, for the advantageous benefit of forming a strong unitary assembly of the magnet 34 and the shaft 57 as taught by Egawa (col.2:1-6).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christensen (EP 3706292 A1) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2020/0067381 A1).
As to claim 20/2, Christensen 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 4 of Christensen 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]).
Conclusion
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.
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