DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed 07/27/26 has been entered. Claims 12-26 are currently pending, with claims 23-26 being newly added. In light of the claim amendments, revised rejections are detailed below. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 12-26 are objected to because of the following informalities: the independent claims define “a service brake region,” “a securing region” and “a neutral region” of the actuator, which makes it seem like these are physical regions (i.e., locations) of the actuator itself, rather than --positions-- that the actuator can shift between, as is more clearly recited in the dependent claims. For example, claim 25 more clearly recites that “the neutral region, which is an intermediate position between the securing region and the service brake region…” But claim 26, which does not make this clarification, recites that the actuator “moves away from the neutral region,” even though it contains a neutral region. Unless it is understood that a region is a position, it is unclear how a component can move away from a region of itself. Replacing “region” with --position-- would resolve this issue.
Appropriate correction is not necessarily required, but is strongly suggested given the ambiguity here.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 24 is rejected because it recites that the single electromechanically actuated element “communicates with the parking” for locking or securing of the axle. This is incomprehensible.
Claim 25 is rejected because it recites “…so that the service brake does not generate any braking action. defined intermediate position of one actuator.” This is incomprehensible and appears to be an editing error due to neglect.
Please review all claim language prior to filing responses to expedite prosecution.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Bindl in view of Qu
Claim(s) 12, 17-20 and 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bindl et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0122227) in view of Qu et al. (CN 110701217) (previously cited). Bindl is directed to a powered axle for a dual wheel work vehicle. See Abstract. Qu is directed to a wet brake. See Abstract.
Claim 12: Bindl discloses an electric vehicle [see para. 0031] comprising: an axle (50); and at least one brake system (76) arranged at the axle and comprises: a service brake (180) configured as a frictionally engaging service brake; a parking brake (184) that is positively engaging; and an actuator (182), wherein the actuator is adjustable between a service brake region [see Fig. 4B; para. 0052] within which the actuator communicates with the service brake, a securing region [see Fig. 4C; para. 0053] within which the actuator communicates with the parking brake, and a neutral region [see Fig. 4A; para. 0044] situated between the service brake region and the securing region within which the actuator communicates neither with the service brake nor with the parking brake. See Figs. 2, 3, 4A-4C.
Bindl discloses all the limitations of this claim except it does not disclose that the service brake is configured as a frictionally engaging “wet”-type service brake. Qu discloses an electric vehicle [see para. 0004, 0043] comprising: an axle (18); and at least one brake system arranged at the axle and comprises: a service brake (23) configured as a frictionally engaging wet service brake [see para. 0043-44]; a parking brake (15) that is positively engaging; and an actuator (49; 29, 32, 53; 30, 31, 52; 4, 7) that adjustably actuates both brakes. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use a wet brake because these are often used in electric vehicles because they address mechanical brake underuse (due to regenerative braking, for example) by lubricating surfaces and thereby increasing the longevity of the assembly.
Claim 17: see claim 12 above.
Claim 18: Bindl discloses a further service brake (another 76 on the opposite side of 50) located at the axle further comprises: communicating by a further actuator with the further wet service brake when stopping the electric vehicle, to generate a braking action at the axle by the further wet service brake; maintaining the braking action by the further wet service brake while the actuator moves from the service brake region through the neutral region to the securing region with the electric vehicle secured; cancelling connection of the further actuator to the further wet service brake by movement of the further actuator from a further service brake region into a further neutral region after the actuator has entered into communication with the parking brake, so that the axle is secured by the parking brake. See Figs. 2-3. Upon modifying with Qu, this service brake would be wet as well.
Claim 19: Bindl discloses that the further actuator is moved from the further service brake region to a further securing region during release of the axle and enters into communication with a further parking brake to secure the axle by the further parking brake. See Figs. 2-3.
Claim 20: Qu discloses that the further actuator is moved into the further service brake region before cancellation of the connection of the actuator to the parking brake and enters into communication with the further wet service brake so that the further wet service brake generates a braking action at the axle and movement of the further actuator into the further neutral region after the actuator has been moved into the neutral region after cancellation of the connection between the actuator and the parking brake. See Figs. 2-4C; para. 0044, 046, 0052-53.
Claim 23: Bindl discloses that the actuator is a single electromechanically actuated element. See Fig. 3.
Claim 24: Bindl discloses that in the securing region the single electromechanically actuated element communicates with the parking for locking or securing of the axle by positive engagement. See Fig. 4C.
Claim 25: Bindl discloses that in the neutral region, which is an intermediate position between the securing region and the service brake region, the single electromechanically actuated element is not in communication with the service brake so that the service brake does not generate any braking action. defined intermediate position of one actuator. See Fig. 4A; para. 0044.
Claim 26: Bindl discloses that in the service brake region a change in the position of the single electromechanically actuated element produces a variation in the braking action that increases toward a maximum as the single electromechanically actuated element moves away from the neutral region. See Fig. 4B (braking increases since going from zero braking to an engaged state)
Bindl in view of Qu and Wakui
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bindl in view of Qu and Wakui (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0363755) (previously cited). Wakui is directed to a support structure of a power system. See Abstract.
Claim 13: Bindl discloses that the brake system is interior to a transmission stage (170-178), but does not explicitly refer to the differential. See Fig. 4A. Wakui discloses an electric vehicle wherein the at least one brake system (53) is arranged between a differential (6) and a transmission stage (5, 52) of the axle (3L, 3R). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to place the brake system in this location since differentials are typically located interior to the wheel, and since the transmission stage in Bindl is located on the exterior of the brake assembly, this feature would naturally follow.
Bindl in view of Qu and Baehrle-Miller
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bindl in view of Qu and Baehrle-Miller (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0389437) (previously cited). Baehrle-Miller is directed to a drivetrain for a vehicle. See Abstract.
Claims 15-16: Bindl and Qu are relied upon as in claim 12 but do not discuss the use of the brake system in more than one axle. Baehrle-Miller discloses an electric vehicle with exactly one brake system at each axle, or exactly two brake systems at each axle. See para. 0024, 0028. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include additional brake systems to apply a greater braking force, or have greater control of individual axles and/or wheels (for example, due to wheel slip). It would further be obvious to one skilled in the art to arrange these brake systems across from each other to ensure proper balance/weight of the vehicle.
Bindl in view of Qu and Forster
Claim(s) 14 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qu in view of Forster (DE 10 2017 212364) (previously cited). Forster is directed to a method for parking a motor vehicle in a parking position. See Abstract.
Claim 14: Bindl and Qu are relied upon as in claim 12 but do not discuss activating the parking brake due to unintended rolling (for example, on a slope). Forster disclose the use of a sensor (22) that activated an electronic parking brake in response to the unintended rolling of the vehicle. See Translation; Fig. 1. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature because, depending on the inclination angle of a road surface and external forces, unintended rolling of a vehicle may occur on a slope, hence detecting movement in these conditions to provide automatic braking ensures safety of the user, the vehicle, and the surrounding environment.
Claim 21: see claim 14 above.
Claim 22: Bindl discloses a compensating torque is generated which acts on the axle and compensates a disengagement force which occurs when the connection of the actuator to the parking brake is canceled. See para. 0053.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/27/26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references 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 VISHAL R SAHNI whose telephone number is (571)270-3838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm PST.
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.
VISHAL SAHNI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/VISHAL R SAHNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
August 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights