DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the Applicant filing on 6.22.26. Claims 16-40,42 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Response to Arguments and Amendments
The Applicant has made amendments to claims 16, 22,29, canceled claim 41 and added new claim 42 which will be examined below.
Drawing objections related to claims 40 and 41 are withdrawn in light of Applicant remarks and claim 41 cancelation.
35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection of claims 22-23 is withdrawn in light of claim 22 amendment.
With respect to 35 U.S.C 102 and 103 rejections, the Applicant provides arguments to which the
Examiner will respond accordingly:
Applicant Argument 1: …illustrated in Figure 2, reproduced below, Godinsky's alleged intermediate part, i.e., spacer 22 and support seal 24, are not arranged between Godinsky's alleged magnet body, i.e., field shell 32, and Godinsky's alleged armature plate, i.e., armature 16.
Examiner Response 1: Examiner will withdraw earlier rejection in light of argument as well as lack of clarity regarding axial location of 44 in Godinsky Fig 2.
Applicant Argument 2: As an initial matter, Epskamp does not constitute prior art to the present application under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2). In this regard, Epskamp was published on October 26, 2023, which is after the November 3, 2022, international filing date of the present application.
Examiner Response 2: Examiner will reconsider Epskamp in light of above argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16,18-19,30,33-34,39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fichtner-Pflaum (WO2018141481A1 English translation).
Regarding Claim 16, Fichtner-Pflaum discloses (Figs 1-4) a brake arrangement, comprising:
a shaft to be braked [0001];
a housing part (0044 discloses housing part);
a magnet body (1) including a recess (2 space);
an armature plate (4);
an intermediate part (5) arranged between the housing part (0044 discloses the location of housing part to be on the other side of 4 relative to 5) and the magnet body (1) and including radially inwardly projecting stop regions (30) that project further (30 are protrusion axially) in an axial direction (AA) toward the armature plate (4) than a pole face (1pf) formed on the magnet body (1); and
a ring winding (2 is coil) accommodated in the recess in the magnet body;
wherein the intermediate part (5) is arranged between the magnet body (1) and the armature plate (4).
PNG
media_image1.png
295
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
436
518
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
328
512
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
462
652
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 18, Fichtner-Pflaum discloses the brake arrangement according to claim 16. Fichtner-Pflaum further discloses wherein the stop regions (30) cover a radial distance region in relation to an axis of rotation (AA) of the shaft, the radial distance region being arranged radially within a region of contact between the intermediate part (5) and the housing part (0044 discloses bearing flange which can be taken as housing) and overlapping [0044 discloses an axial stack up of bearing flange relative to 4] with a radial distance region covered by the armature plate (4).
Regarding Claim 19, Fichtner-Pflaum discloses the brake arrangement according to claim 16. Fichtner-Pflaum further discloses wherein the stop regions (30) are arranged at a distance from each other in a circumferential direction (Fig 4).
Regarding Claim 30, Fichtner-Pflaum discloses the brake arrangement according to claim 16. Fichtner-Pflaum further discloses wherein a brake pad carrier (Para 0044) is connected to the shaft[0042] for conjoint rotation and arranged in an axially movable manner (0042) relative to the shaft.
Regarding Claim 33, Fichtner-Pflaum discloses the brake arrangement according to claim 16. Fichtner-Pflaum further discloses wherein the pole face (1pf) is shaped like a circular ring (Fig 3 discloses 1 is substantially circular) and is formed flat on an end face (Fig 1) facing the armature plate (4).
Regarding Claim 34, Fichtner-Pflaum discloses the brake arrangement according to claim 16. Fichtner-Pflaum further discloses wherein the intermediate part (5) is arranged to completely extend around in a circumferential direction (Fig 3) and/or surrounds the pole face radially.
Regarding Claim 39, Fichtner-Pflaum discloses the brake arrangement according to claim 16. Fichtner-Pflaum further discloses wherein a ring axis (AA) of the ring winding (2) is oriented coaxially (Fig 1) to an axis of rotation of the shaft (AA).
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 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 17,31-32,38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Fichtner-Pflaum in view of Godinsky.
Regarding Claim 17, Fichtner-Pflaum discloses the brake arrangement according to claim 16 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the magnetic body is made of a ferromagnetic material, and the armature plate is made of a ferromagnetic material.
Godinsky discloses wherein the magnetic body (Fig 2,32) is made of a ferromagnetic material [0018 discloses “Field shell 32 may be made from materials having a relatively low magnetic reluctance such as ferromagnetic materials”] , and the armature plate (16) is made of a ferromagnetic material [ 0016 discloses “Armature 16 may be made from metals or metal alloys or other materials having relatively low magnetic reluctance such as iron or steel”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed brake arrangement of Fichtner-Pflaum with ferromagnetic material for magnetic body and armature plate in order to provide sufficient magnetic force to act against compression spring force as is well known in the art.
PNG
media_image5.png
378
448
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
728
424
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
354
400
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 31, Fichtner-Pflaum discloses the brake arrangement according to claim 30. Fichtner-Pflaum further discloses the brake pad carrier being arranged [0044] axially between the armature plate (4) and a braking face formed on a bearing flange [0044] but does explicitly disclose an internal toothing meshes with an external toothing of a tappet connected to the shaft for conjoint rotation .
Godinsky discloses wherein an internal toothing meshes with an external toothing of a tappet connected to the shaft for conjoint rotation [Para 0014 and Fig 1 spline].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed brake arrangement of Fichtner-Pflaum modified by spline arrangement of Godinsky in order to have structure that can support a rotating shaft and bear torque transmitting capability.
Regarding Claim 32, Fichtner-Pflaum in view of Godinsky discloses the brake arrangement according to claim 31. Fichtner-Pflaum in view of Godinsky further discloses wherein the armature plate (Fichtner-Pflaum ,4) is adapted to press toward the brake pad carrier (0043,0044,Fig 1) when the ring winding (2) is not energized so that the brake pad carrier is pressed onto the braking face (0045), and the armature plate (4) is adapted to move toward the magnet body (1) against spring forces (3 force) generated by spring elements (3) when the ring winding (2) is energized [0046].
Regarding Claim 38, Fichtner-Pflaum discloses the brake arrangement according to claim 16 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the armature plate and the magnet body are made of a respective ferromagnetic material.
Godinsky discloses wherein the magnet body (32) is made of a ferromagnetic material [0018 discloses “Field shell 32 may be made from materials having a relatively low magnetic reluctance such as ferromagnetic materials”] , and the armature plate (16) is made of a ferromagnetic material [ 0016 discloses “Armature 16 may be made from metals or metal alloys or other materials having relatively low magnetic reluctance such as iron or steel”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed brake arrangement of Fichtner-Pflaum with ferromagnetic material for magnetic body and armature plate in order to provide sufficient magnetic force to act against compression spring force as is well known in the art.
Claims 20,28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Fichtner-Pflaum.
Regarding Claim 20, Fichtner-Pflaum discloses the brake arrangement according to claim 16 but does not explicitly disclose pins are connected to the armature plate, a respective pin projecting through an axially passing through recess in a respective stop region and project through an axially passing through bore of the magnet body .
Fichtner-Pflaum further discloses (Fig 4) pins (Pi) (Fig 4 discloses two holes Ho) are connected to the armature plate (4), a respective pin projecting through an axially passing through recess in a respective stop region (Ho is in a recess area between multiple 30) and project through an axially passing through bore (Fig 1 discloses Pi coming on other side of 1) of the magnet body (1) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed brake arrangement of Fichtner-Pflaum with pin structure as further taught by Fichtner-Pflaum in order to keep the movement of armature plate aligned relative to magnet body.
Regarding Claim 28, Fichtner-Pflaum discloses the brake arrangement according to claim 20. Fichtner-Pflaum further discloses wherein spring elements (3) supported on the magnet body (1) press on the armature plate (4), the armature plate being arranged in an axially movable manner (Fig 1) and arranged in a rotationally fixed manner [Figs 1,3-4 taken together] to the magnet body by the pins (Pi).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed brake arrangement of Fichtner-Pflaum with pin structure as further taught by Fichtner-Pflaum in order to keep the movement of armature plate aligned relative to magnet body.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fichtner-Pflaum in view of Godinsky and Bader (US20040208725A1).
Regarding Claim 24, Fichtner-Pflaum discloses the brake arrangement according to claim 20 but does not explicitly disclose a sealing element is accommodated in a respective bore of the magnet body and seals towards the pin.
Godinsky discloses bore of magnet body (32) and the pin (31) and a sealing element (24) but does not explicitly disclose wherein a sealing element is accommodated in a respective bore and seals towards the pin.
Bader discloses (Fig 1) wherein a sealing element (4) is accommodated in a respective bore (7) and seals towards the pin (1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed brake arrangement of Fichtner-Pflaum with seal of Godinsky in order to prevent leakins into coil area and seal in bore arrangement of Bader in order to prevent a leak flow path between thread and bore.
PNG
media_image8.png
591
430
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claims 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fichtner-Pflaum in view of Dietrich (DE19902195A1 English translation).
Regarding Claim 35, Fichtner-Pflaum discloses the brake arrangement according to claim 20. Fichtner-Pflaum does not explicitly disclose wherein end regions of the pins facing away from the armature plate axially delimit a lever part that is subjected to spring force applied by a spring part supported on a screw.
Dietrich discloses (Fig 1) wherein end regions (11E) of the pins facing away from the armature plate (5) axially delimit a lever part (14) that is subjected to spring force applied by a spring part (15) supported on a screw (15s).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed brake arrangement of Fichtner-Pflaum modified by lever part biased by spring force supported by screw in order to have mechanical structure to disable brake within a given packet size depending upon design choice.
PNG
media_image9.png
752
536
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 36, Fichtner-Pflaum in view of Dietrich discloses the brake arrangement according to claim 35. Fichtner-Pflaum in view of Dietrich does not explicitly disclose wherein the lever part is supported on the magnet body, and a manual release lever is connected to the lever part.
Dietrich further discloses (Fig 1) wherein the lever part (14) is supported (Fig 1) on the magnet body (9), and a manual release lever (18,20) is connected to the lever 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 formed brake arrangement of Fichtner-Pflaum in view of Dietrich modified by lever part structure and support as further taught by Dietrich in order to have access to release mechanism and provide support to actuate brake release.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fichtner-Pflaum in view of Pfann et al (US6321883B1), hereinafter Pfann.
Regarding Claim 37, Fichtner-Pflaum discloses the brake arrangement according to claim 16. Fichtner-Pflaum further discloses wherein the intermediate part (5) is formed in one piece (Fig 4), in one part (Fig 4) but does not explicitly disclose as an injection-molded part ,as an elastomer injection-molded part, and/or as a plastic injection-molded part.
Pfann discloses (Fig 3) intermediate part (38,9) as an injection-molded part ,as an elastomer injection-molded part (38,9) and/or as a plastic injection-molded 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 formed brake arrangement of Fichtner-Pflaum with intermediate part with elastomer as taught by Pfann in order to have required dampening when the actuator is energized.
PNG
media_image10.png
238
368
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fichtner-Pflaum in view of Rieger and Lengsfeld (US4135612A).
Regarding Claim 40, Fichtner-Pflaum discloses an electric motor , comprising: a brake arrangement as recited in claim 16; wherein the housing part is tightly connected to a bearing flange (Para 0044 bearing flange and housing part can be same), wherein the shaft [0001] is rotatably mounted; wherein a braking face (0045) is arranged on the bearing flange but does not explicitly disclose wherein the bearing flange is connected on a side facing away from the housing part to a stator housing part of the electric motor, the stator housing part radially surrounding a stator winding of the electric motor.
Rieger discloses (Fig 1) wherein the bearing flange (12) is connected on a side facing away from the housing part (11) to a stator housing part [0085] of the electric motor but does not explicitly disclose the stator housing part radially surrounding a stator winding of the electric motor.
Lengsfeld discloses (Fig 1) the stator housing part (1) radially surrounding a stator winding (3)of the electric motor (Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed brake arrangement of Fichtner-Pflaum modified by bearing flange with stator housing structure of Rieger for required support of rotating shaft and stator housing radially surrounding stator winding of Lengsfeld in order to support stator winding as is well known in the art.
PNG
media_image11.png
604
602
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
426
670
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-23,29,42 are allowed. Claims 21,25-27 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Previously claims 22-23 were allowable. Applicant has recited Claim 22 in independent form by including all of the limitations of previous claim 16 and 20. Therefore amended claim 22 is allowed. Claims 23,29,42 are allowed as they are dependent upon claim 22.
Claim 21 recites “The brake arrangement according to claim 20, wherein the respective pin is enclosed in a form-fitting pressed manner by the intermediate part and and/or the respective pin is guided through and touches the respective stop region”. In Fichtner-Pflaum, although element Pi goes through Ho, there is no explicit disclosure of “form fitting pressed manner”, Further impact regions 30 are away from Ho region. Therefore Claim 21 is allowable.
Claim 25 recites “The brake arrangement according to claim 16, wherein projections project radially outwardly from the armature plate, the projections adapted to impact on the stop regions when the brake is released. In Fichtner-Pflaum, Fig 3 discloses ear shaped 2 projections in element 4, however they do not impact of stop regions 30. Therefore claim 25 is allowable. Claims 26-27 are as they are dependent upon claim 25.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISWANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4814. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached at 5712723560. 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.
/VISWANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights