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 . Claims 1-16 are pending.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammer et al. (CN 112922980 A, same as DE 102019219002 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
473
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
333
689
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Hammer discloses a blocking mechanism for a vehicle (see the tile: “Electromechanical Braking Device For A Motor Vehicle”), the blocking mechanism comprising:
a blocking actuator (40, fig. 3) of a drivetrain of the vehicle;
a blockable shaft (14, 18, figs. 1-3) of the drivetrain; and
a form-fitting element (36, figs. 1-3 and 48, figs. 2-3) being part of the blocking actuator and being actuated between the blocking actuator and the blockable shaft (via active element 41, fig. 3), the form-fitting element is actuated in an axial stroke movement and longitudinally in relation to the blockable shaft (implied, see the arrangement in fig. 3), wherein:
in a state where the form-fitting element bears against an end face of a shaft-mounted complement (46, figs. 2-3) to which the form-fitting element is partially form-fittingly coupled, the form-fitting element (48, fig. 3) is biased longitudinally in relation to the shaft and in defined manner against the shaft-mounted complement by way of at least one elastic force transmission portion (44, fig. 2) to form a latching engagement,
in a blocked state of the blockable shaft (when 46 and 48 couple, fig. 3), the form-fitting element (48, figs. 2-3) and the shaft-mounted complement (46, fig. 3) engage in one another in a form-fitting region of the blocking mechanism (see fig. 3; shape fitting coupling 42), the form-fitting element is supported against a housing portion (10, fig. 1) of an electric motor drive unit (4, fig. 1), on which the blocking actuator is mounted, and, in the form-fitting region (42, fig. 3) and in a circumferential direction of the blockable shaft, the blocking mechanism has a movement clearance between the form-fitting element and the shaft-mounted complement (implied, otherwise, they can’t be coupled; see also: “the sliding sleeve 36 by means of the shaft hub connection 38 shown in FIG. 2 is rotatably connected with the shaft 14 under the condition of keeping the rotating gap, so that the transmission gear 18 can rotate relative to the bracket member 16 for fixing. The shaft hub connection 38 has a gear shaft profile with the rotation gap.”).
Regarding claim 2, Hammer discloses the blocking mechanism of claim 1, wherein the shaft-mounted complement (46, fig. 3) is arranged in the region of an end of the shaft.
Regarding claim 4, Hammer discloses the blocking mechanism of claim 3, wherein the form-fitting element is arranged coaxially with the shaft (see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Hammer discloses the blocking mechanism of claim 1, wherein the form-fitting element is shaped in the form of an annular element that runs around in closed fashion (see 48 in fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Hammer discloses the blocking mechanism of claim 1, wherein the form-fitting element has an inner profiling (38, fig. 2) which form-fittingly interacts with a complementary profiling of the shaft-mounted complement in the form-fitting region (see the inner coupling with shaft 14 in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Hammer discloses the blocking mechanism of claim 1, wherein the form-fitting element has an outer profiling being complementary to a guide portion of the blocking actuator or of the housing portion, via which guide portion the form-fitting element is longitudinally guided for the axial stroke movement and via which guide portion the form-fitting element is indirectly or directly supported against the housing portion (implied, see the “sliding sleeve 36” in fig. 1; see also: “The sliding sleeve 36 can be moved in the starting position of the sliding sleeve or along the opening direction of the coupling device 42 by means of force storage 54.”)
Regarding claim 8, Hammer discloses the blocking mechanism of claim 1, wherein the form-fitting element is supported against a housing portion of an electric motor housing or of a gear housing (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Hammer discloses the blocking mechanism of claim 1, wherein the form-fitting element is electrically actuatable (41, fig. 3; see: “The operating mechanism 41 may be, for example, an electromagnet, a linear motor, or a motor with a rocker.”).
Regarding claim 10, Hammer discloses the blocking mechanism of claim 1, wherein the form-fitting element is attached to a movement mechanism of the blocking actuator via the at least one elastic force transmission portion (spring 54, fig. 1), which movement mechanism brings about the axial stroke movement of the form-fitting element (implied).
Regarding claim 11, Hammer discloses the blocking mechanism of claim 10, wherein the movement mechanism has a screw drive for generating the axial stroke movement (“the brake actuator is designed as a screw transmission mechanism, for example.”).
Regarding claim 12, Hammer discloses the blocking mechanism of claim 10, wherein the movement mechanism has a plunger coil for generating the axial stroke movement (41, fig. 3; see: “The operating mechanism 41 may be, for example, an electromagnet, a linear motor, or a motor with a rocker.”).
Regarding claim 13, Hammer discloses an electric motor drive unit having a blocking mechanism of claim 1 (see the abstract: “the operation force for friction brake lining of the servo motor is transmitted to the brake actuator through the transmission mechanism with the transmission gear;”).
Regarding claim 14, Hammer discloses a vehicle (see the title: “Electromechanical Braking Device For Motor Vehicle”) having an electric motor drive unit of claim 13.
Regarding claim 15, Hammer, as discussed regarding claim 1, discloses a method for blocking a shaft of a drivetrain for a vehicle, by a blocking mechanism, the method comprising:
providing a blocking actuator (40, fig. 3) of a drivetrain of the vehicle;
providing a blockable shaft (14, 18, figs. 2-3) of the drivetrain;
providing a form-fitting element being part of the blocking actuator (36, 48, fig. 3);
actuating the form-fitting element between the blocking actuator and the blockable shaft (via active element/motor 41, fig. 3), the form-fitting element is actuated in an axial stroke movement and longitudinally in relation to the blockable shaft (see the longitudinal arrangement in fig. 3); and
engaging the form-fitting element with the shaft-mounted complement into latching engagement by utilizing a movement clearance, up to a maximum rotational speed of the shaft that depends on the movement clearance, the form-fitting element, in a state in which it bears against an end face of the shaft-mounted complement, is biased longitudinally in relation to the shaft and with a definable force against the shaft-mounted complement via the at least one elastic force transmission portion until a latching engagement is obtained (these limitations were discussed regarding claim 1).
Regarding claim 16, Hammer discloses the method of claim 15, wherein when the vehicle starts to move from a stationary position, a shaft of the vehicle is blocked up to a maximum speed of the vehicle that depends on the movement clearance (implied due to the gap between the form fitting elements some movement is possible).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammer et al. (CN 112922980 A) as evidenced by Li et al. (CN 116066557 A).
Regarding claim 3, Hammer discloses the blocking mechanism of claim 2, but does not disclose wherein the blocking actuator is mounted on the housing portion in a way situated opposite the end of the shaft.
PNG
media_image3.png
367
945
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Deciding about on which side or which shaft to mount the blocking actuator is a design choice and within the skills of a person having ordinary skills in the art as evidenced by Li. Li teaches a parking break for electric vehicles wherein the locking device can be mounted an either side of a shaft (see figs. 3 and 4) or on any of the shafts (“Here, the target locking shaft is a power input shaft 2. However, it is obvious, also to select the middle shaft 3 and the power output shaft 4 as the target locking shaft.”).
For design purposes, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to that: the blocking actuator is mounted on the housing portion in a way situated opposite the end of the shaft.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MASOUD VAZIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-2340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm EST..
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, the examiner’s supervisor, SEYE IWARERE can be reached on (571) 270-5112. 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.
/MASOUD VAZIRI/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834