DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed August 12, 2026 has been received and considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 11, 16, and 19-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German Patent No. DE 102010000737 to Heise in view of PG Publication No. 2016/0017942 to Kwon et al.
Regarding Claim 11, Heise discloses an electromechanical brake (see Figure 1) for braking a motor vehicle having most all the features of the instant invention including: an electric motor 1 having a shaft 13 via which a brake piston 18 can be axially moved for braking (see Figure 1), a disk 33 having a plurality of recesses arranged in a circumferential direction (see Figure 7a and paragraph 0063 of the translation), arranged on the shaft 13 (see Figure 7a, wherein the disk 33 sits on top of rotor 34 and thus on the motor/shaft as shown in Figure 2 and described in paragraph 0063 of the translation), and a magnetic actuator 36 which axially moves a pin 37 so that one end of the pin 37 interacts with the recesses of the disk 33 and blocks a movement of the shaft 13 in a brake release direction (see Figures 7a and 7b and paragraphs 0063-0067 of the translation), wherein the pin 37 can be held in a bistable manner (see paragraphs 0063-0067 of the translation), wherein the magnetic actuator 36 and a control unit (inherently present within unit 38”) are arranged in an axial direction relative to the electric motor 1 and the pin 37 is movable parallel to the shaft 13 (see Figures 2 and 7a), wherein the disk 33 is a toothed disk (see Figure 7a), and wherein, in a region of an axial end, the pin 58 has a groove (see Figure 10a and the grooves on either side of the lower end of the pin 58) which interacts with teeth 53 of the toothed disk so that the pin 58 can be held in a stable position (see Figure 10a).
However, Heise do not disclose that the control unit controls both the electric motor and the magnetic actuator.
Kwon et al are relied upon merely for their teachings of an electromechanical brake for braking a motor vehicle (see Figure 1) having an actuator 50 and a control unit 70 for controlling both an electric motor 20 and the actuator 50 (see Figure 1 and paragraphs 0032, 0034, and 0054).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have designed the control unit of Heise to control both the electric motor and the magnetic actuator as taught by Kwon et al in order to simplify the overall design of the brake and provide multi-functionality for the controller thus reducing the overall number of parts to the brake assembly.
Regarding Claim 16, Heise, as modified, further discloses that, at one axial end, the pin 58 has a widening 57 which interacts with the teeth 53 of the toothed disk so that the pin 58 can be held in a stable position (see Figure 10a).
Regarding Claim 19, Heise, as modified, further discloses that the magnetic actuator 36 has a latching mechanism 43 using which the pin 37 can be held in a bistable manner (see paragraph 0062 of the translation).
Regarding Claim 20, Heise, as modified, discloses most all the features of the instant invention, as applied above, except for a speed sensor being arranged in a control unit for measuring a speed of the electric motor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a speed sensor in the control unit of Heise, as modified, to measure a speed of the electric motor in order to utilize the rpms of the motor to regulate the braking of the shaft in a more efficient manner.
Regarding Claim 21, Heise, as modified, further discloses that magnetic actuator 36 is arranged in a hole in a housing of the electromechanical brake (see Figures 2 and 7a).
Regarding Claim 22, see Claim 11 above.
Regarding Claim 23, Heise, as modified, does not disclose that the toothed disk is a sheet metal part.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have designed the toothed disk of Heise, as modified, to be a sheet metal part as a matter of design preference dependent upon the desired overall strength and durability of the toothed disk.
Regarding Claim 24, Heise, as modified, further discloses that the pin 58 has a plurality of parts 41 and 37 arranged axially (see Figure 7a of Heise), wherein the plurality of parts 41 and 37 are inherently joined during assembly (see Figure 7a of Heise).
Regarding Claim 25, Kwon et al further disclose that an axial end 53 of the pin 52 pointing towards the toothed disk 24 has a conical tip (see Figure 5 of Kwon et al and paragraph 0049).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have designed the axial end of the pin of Heise pointing towards the toothed disk to have a conical tip as taught by Kwon et al dependent upon the desired type of engagement between the pin and the disk. As long as the two components adequately contact one another, the shape of the tip of the pin is arbitrary.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 17, 18, and 26 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 12,2026 regarding Claims 11, 16, 19, 21, and 22 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of independent Claim 11, applicant argues that Heise’s locking unit 38 (equivalent to a control unit of the brake assembly) does not control the electric motor. Applicant contends that Heise does not teach a control unit that controls BOTH, the electric motor and the magnetic actuator, as now claimed.
In response to this, the examiner has now utilized the Kwon et al reference, as outlined in the rejection of Claim 11 (and its respective dependent Claims 16, 19, 21, and 22) above, to teach this new limitation of the claim. Kwon et al do disclose an electromechanical brake that has a control unit 70 which controls BOTH an electric motor 20 and an actuator 50. Thus, as outlined in the rejection, one of ordinary skill in the art could have designed the control unit of Heise to control both the electric motor and the magnetic actuator as taught by Kwon et al in order to simplify the overall design of the brake and provide multi-functionality for the controller thus reducing the overall number of parts to the brake assembly.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed August 12, 2026, with respect to Claims 13, 17, 18, and 26 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of Claims 13 and 17 have been withdrawn and amended/new Claims 18 and 26 have been subsequently allowed.
Applicant's arguments filed August 12,2026 regarding new Claims 23-25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 23, applicant contends that Heise does not teach that the toothed disk can be made of a sheet metal part. Applicant alleges that Heise’s gear wheel is a conventional solid gear.
In response to this, the examiner maintains, as outlined in the rejection above, that a sheet metal material for the toothed disk is merely a matter of design preference dependent upon the desired strength and durability of the disk. Constructing the toothed disk out of sheet metal would be a viable and well-known material to enable the functionality of the disk within the assembly and thus would not be beyond the realm of one of ordinary skill in the art to employ.
Regarding Claim 24, applicant argues that Heise’s locking element is a straight plunger and a single piece component with no disclosure of a multi-part axial construction and thus Claim 24 is not taught by the Heise reference.
In response to this, contrary to applicant’s remarks, Heise does teach that the pin 58 is made up of parts 41 and 37/57 which are arranged axially as shown in Figures 7a and 10a, wherein the parts would inherently be joined during assembly. Thus, Heise does teach the limitations of Claim 24.
And lastly applicant argues that Heise does not teach the limitations of Claim 25. Applicant contends that Heise does not disclose a conical tip on its pin element.
In response to this, applicant’s attention is directed to the Kwon et al reference which does teach the limitations of this claim (i.e., conical tip 53 shown in Figure 5), as outlined in the rejection above.
It is for these reasons that the rejections of Claims 11, 16, and 19-25 have been maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PAMELA RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7 AM - 5 PM.
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.
PAMELA RODRIGUEZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
/PAMELA RODRIGUEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 09/29/26
Prosecution Insights