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 .
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bafile et al. (US-2020031749) in view of Schaefer et al. (US-3830328).
Regarding claim 1, Bafile et al. discloses a manual unlocking device (72) for an electronic brake (50), comprising a motor (34), a brake pad (56, wherein armature 56 constitutes the claimed brake pad under its broadest reasonable interpretation because 56 is the movable braking member urged into frictional engagement with friction disk 54 to precvent rotation, and is moved out of contact to release the brake), a brake disc (54), and an unlocking mechanism (72); wherein the brake pad and the brake disc are arranged on the motor (figs 7a-7b, 54 connected through hun 64 to rotor 66); the unlocking mechanism (72) comprises a toggle plate ( at least fig 10, 78), a brake line (Bowden cable 80), and a handle (76); the toggle plate (78) is arranged on the brake disc and fixedly connected to the brake pad (fig 10, [0042] 78 fixed to armature 56) and ; an end of the brake line is fixedly connected to the toggle plate (wherein 80 connects to and pulls 78), and the other end of the brake line is fixedly connected to the handle (fig 85, 76); the handle is configured to adjust a stretching length of the brake line for switching a mating state between the brake pad and the brake disc ([0042] wherein handle 76 is manipulated, thereby adjusting the length of line 80 to actuate the unlocking mechanism and the brake is released).
Regarding the toggle plate and the push/pull operational constraints of the cable, Bafile et al discloses only a single direction pull operation for disengagement of (54) and (56) and requires springs (68) in order to return cable travel in the opposite direction engaging (54) and (56). Schaefer et al. teaches a known alternative remote-brake control arrangement employing a push-pull cable (24), wherein movement of the cable via a handle (34) in one direction positively applies the brake and movement of the cable in the opposite direction positively releases the brake. Specifically, pulling the push-pull cable operates the brake applying mechanism to apply the brake, whereas pushing rod 174 forward by cable 24 operates the release lever 158 to release the brake (at least figs 9-11 and cols. 3-5).
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 Bowden cable/manual release arrangement of Bafile et al. to employ the bidirectionally operable push/pull brake cable taught by Schaefer et al. at least to provide positive remote mechanical actuation of the brake in both the engaging and disengaging directions, rather than relying upon cable actuation in one direction and spring return in the other, thereby providing predictable positive control of both brake states from the remote handle.
Regarding claim 2, Bafile et al. discloses wherein the brake line is arranged with a fixing member for fixing the brake line (fig 4, unlabeled member fixing 80 to 34 adjacent the toggle plate 78); an adjusting space is defined between the fixing member and the toggle plate for adjusting the stretching length of the brake line.
PNG
media_image1.png
642
816
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Bafile et al. discloses wherein the brake line is screwed to the toggle plate through a first nut and screwed to the fixing member through a second nut (see annotated fig 4).
Regarding claim 4, Bafile et al. discloses wherein the fixing member is fixedly connected to a motor housing of the motor (see annotated fig 4, 34).
Regarding claim 5, Bafile et al. discloses wherein the toggle plate (78) is fixedly connected to the brake pad through a pin (fig 10, pin structure sandwiching 78 together with 56). The structure sandwiching 78 constitutes the claimed pin under its broadest reasonable interpretation because the claim only requires a fixed connection through a pin, and no specific orientation or relationship between the pin and the plate has been recited.
Regarding claim 6, Bafile et al. discloses wherein the unlocking mechanism (72) is configured to be arranged under a cushion (22) of a low-speed electric vehicle (10, fig 5).
Regarding claim 7, Bafile et al. discloses wherein the handle (76) is configured to be fixedly arranged on a vehicle body of a low-speed electric vehicle (fig 8).
Regarding claim 8, Bafile et al. discloses wherein the brake line (80) is configured to extend along an outer side of the motor to connect the toggle plate (fig 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As to claim 9, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious wherein the toggle plate is arranged on the brake disc and fixedly connected to the brake pad; an end of the brake line is fixedly connected to the toggle plate, and the other end of the brake line is fixedly connected to the handle, such that the toggle plate is configured to be pushed by the brake line to move the brake pad out of engagement with the brake disc, and to be pulled by the brake line to move the brake pad into engagement with the brake disc, and wherein the brake pad is arranged between the brake disc and the toggle plate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 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.
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 JAMES K HSIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-6259. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5, Monday-Friday.
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.
/JAMES K HSIAO/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
