DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “152” has been used to designate both the “first portion” and the “resilient band” in Fig. 4. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim 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.
Claims 1-6, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nesmjanowitsch (EP 2410198 A1) in view of Boyle et al. (US 2020/0096067 A1).
Re claims 1 and 13, Nesmjanowitsch teaches an electromechanical brake actuator for applying braking force to a rotor, comprising: a first ball nut assembly (7) including a first spindle and a first nut axially movable relative to the rotor in response to rotation of the first spindle; a second ball nut assembly (7) including a second spindle and a second nut axially movable relative to the rotor in response to rotation of the second spindle; and an anti-rotation member (see below) secured to both the first and second nuts for limiting relative rotational movement between the first and second nuts. (Fig. 1-4)
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First nut)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second nut)][AltContent: textbox (Anti-rotation member)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
618
412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nesmjanowitsch teaches an application device (2) for supplying torque to the spindles such that both spindles rotate to cause both nuts to simultaneously move towards the rotor for applying braking force thereto. However, Nesmjanowitsch does not teach a motor. Boyle et al. teaches a motor (40) for supplying torque to the spindles such that both spindles rotate to cause both nuts to simultaneously move towards the rotor for applying braking force thereto. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to supply torque to the spindles since motors are well known means for actuating brake devices.
Re claims 2 and 13, Nesmjanowitsch does not teach a gear train connected to the first and second spindles. Boyle et al. teaches a gear train (40) connected to the first and second spindles. ([0061], [0065]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a gear train as taught by Boyle et al. in order to allow for torque adjustment.
Re claims 3 and 14, Nesmjanowitsch as modified teaches wherein the gear train comprises a first gear rotatable with the first spindle, a second gear rotatable with the second spindle, and an idler gear meshed with the first and second gears. (Boyle et al. - [0027])
Re claim 4, Nesmjanowitsch as modified teaches wherein the motor supplies torque directly to the idler gear. (Boyle et al. - [0027])
Re claim 5, Nesmjanowitsch as modified teaches wherein the motor supplies torque directly to first spindle and indirectly to the second spindle. (Boyle et al. - [0027])
Re claim 6, Nesmjanowitsch as modified teaches wherein the anti-rotation member (10) extends from the first nut to the second nut and moves with the nuts. (Fig. 1-4)
Re claim 12, Nesmjanowitsch as modified teaches wherein the anti-rotation member (see above) further limits at least one of relative axial movement and relative pivoting between the first and second nuts.
.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-11 and 15-18 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.
Claims 19-22 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not teach heating the anti-rotation member to expand first and second openings therein; passing the nuts of the first and second ball nut assemblies into the first and second openings; and cooling the anti-rotation member to shrink the first and second openings and secure the anti-rotation member to the first and second ball nut assemblies to thereby limit relative movement therebetween.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bieker et al., Baumgartner, Ritsema, Howard et al., Thomas et al., and Giering teach similar brake actuators.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
/MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
MTWAugust 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights