DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on 5.10.24. In view of this communication, claims 16-41 are now pending in this application.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Claim 40 recites “stator housing part radially surrounding…” and “the housing part is tightly connected to a bearing flange of the electric motor” and “the bearing flange is connected on a side facing away from the housing part to a stator housing part” which are not shown with element referrals to understand structure.
Claim 41 recites “second bearing flange…” which is not shown with element referrals to understand structure.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims below 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 22 recite the limitations” wherein the respective stop region distances the respective pin from a wall of a bore through which the pin projects”. Claim 20 upon which claim 22 depends recites “bore of the magnet body”. To advance prosecution, Examiner interprets “a bore” as “the bore”. Claim 23 is rejected due to its dependency on Claim 22 .
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 16-20, 25-30, 33-34, 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Godinsky (US20190170201A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Godinsky discloses (Figs 1-3) a brake arrangement, comprising:
a shaft to be braked [0014];
a housing part (14);
a magnet body (32) including a recess (34 space);
an armature plate (16);
an intermediate part (22,24) arranged between the housing part and the magnet body and including radially inwardly projecting stop regions (44) that project further (22,24 is projecting to the left of 38,40) in an axial direction (26 left in Fig 2) toward the armature plate than a pole face (38,40) formed on the magnet body; and
a ring winding (34) accommodated in the recess in the magnet body.
PNG
media_image1.png
378
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
728
424
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
354
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17, Godinsky discloses the brake arrangement according to claim 16. Godinsky further discloses wherein the magnetic 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”].
Regarding Claim 18, Godinsky discloses the brake arrangement according to claim 16. Godinsky further discloses wherein the stop regions (44) cover a radial distance region in relation to an axis of rotation (26) of the shaft, the radial distance region being arranged radially within a region of contact between the intermediate part (22,24) and the housing part (14) and overlapping with a radial distance region covered by the armature plate (16) [0015, 0016, 0018 discloses fastener 31 going through 14, 46 and 32 which therefore are overlapping radially].
Regarding Claim 19, Godinsky discloses the brake arrangement according to claim 16. Godinsky further discloses wherein the stop regions (44) are arranged at a distance from each other in a circumferential direction (Fig 3).
Regarding Claim 20, Godinsky discloses the brake arrangement according to claim 16. Godinsky further discloses wherein pins (31) are connected to the armature plate (16)[0016], a respective pin projecting through an axially passing through recess (46) in a respective stop region (44) and project through an axially passing through bore [0018] of the magnet body (32).
Regarding Claim 25, Godinsky discloses the brake arrangement according to claim 16. Godinsky further discloses wherein projections (areas having holes for fastener 31 which are radial to rest of 16. Claim recitation does not clarify shape of armature plate) project radially outwardly from the armature plate (16) , the projections adapted to impact on the stop regions (44) when the brake is released.
Regarding Claim 26, Godinsky discloses the brake arrangement according to claim 25. Godinsky further discloses wherein the brake is adapted to be released in response to energizing (20 is electromagnet which will pull 16 when energized) the ring winding (34) and/or actuating a manual release.
Regarding Claim 27, Godinsky discloses the brake arrangement according to claim 25. Godinsky further discloses wherein a radial distance region covered by the projections (16 areas having holes for fastener 31 which are radial to rest of 16) overlaps with a radial distance region respectively covered by the stop regions (44) [0015,0016, 0018 discloses fastener 31 going through 14, 46 and 32 which therefore are overlapping radially].
Regarding Claim 28, Godinsky discloses the brake arrangement according to claim 20. Godinsky further discloses wherein spring elements (18) supported on the magnet body (32) press on the armature plate (16), the armature plate being arranged in an axially movable manner (26) and arranged in a rotationally fixed manner [0016] to the magnet body by the pins (31).
Regarding Claim 29, Godinsky discloses the brake arrangement according to claim 16. Godinsky further discloses wherein the intermediate part (44 which is part of 22) is arranged between the magnet body (32) and the armature plate (16).
Regarding Claim 30, Godinsky discloses the brake arrangement according to claim 16. Godinsky further discloses wherein a brake pad carrier (12) is connected to the shaft [0014] for conjoint rotation and arranged in an axially movable manner (splines in Fig 1 will allow axial movement) relative to the shaft.
Regarding Claim 33, Godinsky discloses the brake arrangement according to claim 16. Godinsky further discloses wherein the pole face (38,40) is shaped like a circular ring (Fig 1 discloses 20 which has 38,40 as circular) and is formed flat on an end face (Fig 2) facing the armature plate (16).
Regarding Claim 34, Godinsky discloses the brake arrangement according to claim 16. Godinsky further discloses wherein the intermediate part (22,24) is arranged to completely extend around in a circumferential direction (Figs 2-3) and/or surrounds the pole face radially.
Regarding Claim 37, Godinsky discloses the brake arrangement according to claim 16. Godinsky further discloses wherein the intermediate part (22,24) is formed in one piece [0019], in one part, as an injection-molded part ,as an elastomer injection-molded part, and/or as a plastic injection-molded part.
Regarding Claim 38, Godinsky discloses the brake arrangement according to claim 16. Godinsky further discloses wherein the armature plate (16) and the magnet body (32) are made of a respective ferromagnetic material [0018,0016] (This claim recitation has similar limitations as claim 17).
Regarding Claim 39, Godinsky discloses the brake arrangement according to claim 16. Godinsky further discloses wherein a ring axis (26) of the ring winding (34) is oriented coaxially (Fig 2) to an axis of rotation of the shaft (26).
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Godinsky in view of Pardee et al (US20130048464A1), hereinafter Pardee.
Regarding Claim 21, Godinsky discloses the brake arrangement according to claim 16. Godinsky further discloses wherein the respective pin is enclosed in a form-fitting pressed manner by the intermediate part and and/or the respective pin (31) is guided through 0019 discloses “configured to receive a corresponding fastener 31”] but does not explicitly disclose pin touches stop.
Pardee discloses (Fig 3) pin (116) touches stop (122).
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 Godinsky modified by pin touching stop of Pardee in order to have sealing structure that reduces leak flow path.
PNG
media_image4.png
743
508
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Godinsky in view of Bader et al (US20040208725A1), hereinafter Bader.
Regarding Claim 24, Godinsky discloses the brake arrangement according to claim 20. Godinsky further discloses bore of magnet body (32) and the pin (31) 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 Godinsky modified by seal in bore arrangement of Bader in order to prevent a leak flow path between thread and bore.
PNG
media_image5.png
591
430
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claims 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Godinsky in view of Rieger et al (DE102019002960A1 English translation), hereinafter Rieger.
Regarding Claim 31, Godinsky discloses the brake arrangement according to claim 30. Godinsky further 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] , the brake pad carrier (12) being arranged axially between the armature plate (16) and a braking face (14 face) formed on a flange (14) but does not disclose flange to be a bearing flange .
Rieger discloses (Fig 1) flange (11,12) to be a bearing flange (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 Godinsky modified by bearing flange of Rieger in order to have structure that can support a rotating shaft.
PNG
media_image6.png
532
530
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 32, Godinsky in view of Rieger discloses the brake arrangement according to claim 31. Godinsky in view of Rieger further discloses wherein the armature plate (Godinsky, 16) is adapted to press toward the brake pad carrier (12) when the ring winding (34) is not energized so that the brake pad carrier is pressed onto the braking face (14 face), and the armature plate (16) is adapted to move toward the magnet body (32) against spring forces (18) generated by spring elements when the ring winding is energized.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Godinsky in view of Dietrich (DE19902195A1 English translation).
Regarding Claim 35, Godinsky discloses the brake arrangement according to claim 20. Godinsky 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 (however Fig 1 of Godinski does disclose in Fig 1 what looks like a lever Le but not rest of the structure explicitly).
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 Godinsky 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_image7.png
752
536
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 36, Godinsky in view of Dietrich discloses the brake arrangement according to claim 35. Godinsky 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 Godinsky 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 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Godinsky in view of Epskamp et al (US20230344305A1 PCT filed 9.2.21), hereinafter Epskamp.
Regarding Claim 40, Godinsky discloses a brake arrangement as recited in claim 16; wherein the housing part (14) is tightly connected to a flange (14), wherein the shaft [0014] is rotatably mounted; wherein a braking face (14 right face) is arranged on the flange but does not explicitly disclose an electric motor comprising brake arrangement , housing part connected to a bearing flange of the electric motor, braking face on bearing flange, 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.
Epskamp discloses (Fig 1) an electric motor [Abstract] comprising brake arrangement , housing part (1) connected to a bearing flange (1) of the electric motor, braking face (1 right) on bearing flange, wherein the bearing flange is connected on a side facing away from the housing part (1)(bearing flange and housing part can be same, see Drawing objection) to a stator housing part (13) of the electric motor, the stator housing part radially surrounding a stator winding (14) 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 formed brake arrangement of Godinsky modified by electric motor structure with bearing flange of Epskamp in order to have an application for the electromagnetic brake.
PNG
media_image8.png
564
680
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 41, Godinsky in view of Epskamp discloses the electric motor according to claim 40. Godinsky in view of Epskamp does not explicitly disclose wherein the stator housing part is connected on a side facing away from the bearing flange to a second bearing flange that accommodates a second bearing that rotatably mounts the rotor shaft.
Epskamp further discloses (Fig 1) wherein the stator housing part (13) is connected on a side facing away from the bearing flange (1) to a second bearing flange (1L) that accommodates a second bearing (Bl) that rotatably mounts the rotor shaft (15).
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 Godinsky in view of Epskamp modified by second bearing structure of Epskamp in order to have support at both ends for rotor shaft.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Claim 22 recites “The brake arrangement according to claim 20, wherein the respective stop region distances the respective pin from a wall of a bore through which the pin projects”. In Godinski, the stop 44 does not distance pin 31 from bore. Therefore claim 22 is allowable. Claim 23 is allowable because of its dependency upon claim 22.
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