DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed November 17, 2025. Claims 1-5 have been amended. Claims 1-8 remain pending.
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. Therefore, the “vehicle” (claims 1 and 8), “spring” (claim 3), “housing” and “drive unit” (claim 4), “housing portion”, “electric motor housing” and “reduction gear housing” (claim 5), and “parking lock” (claim 7) must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Applicant’s response filed November 17, 2025 requests reconsideration of this drawing objection, which was included in the previous Office action. Applicant argues that the not-shown elements “are not essential to be depicted in the drawings to provide a proper understanding of the invention.” This argument is not convincing because 37 CFR 1.83(a) states “(t)he drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.” CFR 1.83(a) further states that “conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box)”.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2 of paragraph [0004] “vehicle. between” apparently should read --vehicle, between--.
The brief description of the drawings in paragraphs [0024] to [0028] should refer to Figs. 1a, 1b and 1c and Figs. Figs. 3a, 3b 3c and 3d. See MPEP § 608.01(f).
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,435,320 B1 (Drennen) in view of U.S. Patent No. 2,619,211 A (Belden).
Regarding claim 1, Drennen discloses a locking mechanism (electric park brake 5) supported by a vehicle (see column 1, lines 7-9). The locking mechanism of Drennen comprises a rotatable locking element (cogwheel 25) defining at least one recess (apertures 27); and a locking actuator (30) comprising: an actuable form-fitting element (pins 40) movable between the locking actuator and the at least one recess of the rotatable locking element in an axial stroke movement in portions in a form-fitting manner, to lock the rotatable locking element (see column 2, lines 41-47), and a form-fitting region between the form-fitting element and the lockable element (the region between the inner periphery of the apertures 27 and the pins 40).
Drennen does not disclose that the locking actuator has a degree of freedom of movement for the form-fitting element transverse to the axial stroke movement of the form-fitting element as well as up to an assigned stop, up to which the form-fitting element is deflected during a locking process and after an end of the locking process, to: balance out positioning inaccuracies between the form-fitting element and the recess during the locking process, and to dissipate dynamic torque loads of a drivetrain during the locking process and after the end of the locking process.
Belden discloses a locking mechanism (the coupling in Figs. 1 and 3 which, when in the coupled position shown in Fig. 1, locks the shafts 11, 12 together for common rotation). The locking mechanism of Belden comprises: a rotatable lockable element (13A) defining at least one recess (17A); and a locking actuator (13, 18, 19) comprising: an actuable form-fitting element (i.e., pin 18 in Fig. 1 or 40 in Fig. 11, which are similar to the pins 40 of Drennen) movable between the locking actuator and the least one recess of the rotatable lockable element in an axial stroke movement in portions in a form-fitting manner, to lock the rotatable lockable element, a form-fitting region between the form-fitting element and the lockable element, a degree of freedom of movement for the form-fitting element transverse to the axial stroke movement of the form-fitting element (due to the yieldable bushing 15 and/or the reduced diameter neck 41 and large diameter through holes 42 when the ring-shaped pin carrier is configured as shown in Fig. 11, see column 4, line 37 to column 5, line 3) as well as up to an assigned stop (bushing bore 14a in Fig. 1 and/or the wall of through hole 42 in Fig. 11), up to which the form-fitting element is deflected during a locking process and after an end of the locking process, to: balance out positioning inaccuracies between the form-fitting element and the recess during the locking process (as described in column 4, lines 37-53), and dissipate dynamic torque loads of a drivetrain during the locking process and after the end of the locking process (the yieldable bushings will absorb a certain amount of torque variations).
Belden suggests that providing a degree of freedom of movement for the pins transverse to the axial stroke movement permits compensating alignment of the pins with the bushings when they are out of alignment (see column 4, lines 37-53). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the pins 40 of Drennen with a degree of freedom of movement for pins transverse to the axial stroke movement of the pins outside a form-fitting region between the pins and the lockable element 25 in view of the suggestion of Belden.
Regarding claim 2, the form-fitting element of Belden (pin 18 in Fig. 1 or 40 in Fig. 11) has a first form-fitting element portion (i.e., the portion of the pin 18 or 40 which is selectively received in the pin bore 17A), which is joined for the form fit, with a tapering in the region of its free end (as shown for example in Figs. 1 and 11) as well as a second form-fitting element portion (the portion between the "first portion" and the reduced diameter portion 20 or 41) which is wider (in the axial direction) in comparison with the first form-fitting element portion and longitudinally to the form-fitting element and which, if the tapering interacts with the recess (17A), is deflected transversely to the axial stroke movement, and within play between the second form-fitting element portion and a locking actuator stop (bushing bore 14 in Fig. 1 and/or the wall of through hole 42 in Fig. 11) of the locking actuator and up to against the stop.
Regarding claim 3, the form-fitting element is deflected against the stop acting counter to at least one spring (yieldable bushing 15).
Regarding claim 4, a stop is supported on a housing of a drive unit as broadly claimed. The coupling device in Fig. 1 can be broadly interpreted as a drive unit, to the extent that the coupling is a unit that transmits drive torque between the shafts 11, 12; the flange 13 houses the bushing 15; and the bore 14 defines a stop for limiting the amount of defection of the pin 18.
Regarding claim 6, the form-fitting element (40) of Drennen is electrically actuable (by means of solenoid mechanism 30).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the locking mechanism of Drennen is a parking lock for a vehicle (see column 1, lines 7-9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Belden discloses a clutch for coupling two shafts, whereas “the current invention focuses on locking a single element”. This is not persuasive since the clutch of Belden locks the shafts to one another for rotation together. Further, in the new grounds of rejection the Drennen reference is directed to a park lock device.
Applicant further argues that “Belden's clutch includes multiple pins and yieldable bushings in the flanges to connect the shaft, while the current invention uses a single form-fitting element and a single recess for the locking process.” This is not persuasive since the claims are not limited to a single locking form-fitting element.
Applicant also argues that “the current application describes a locking mechanism for a parking lock”. This is not persuasive since claim 1 does not require the locking mechanism to be for a parking lock. Furthermore, the new rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is based on the combination of Drennen and Belden, and Drennen disclose the use of a coupling with pins similar to Belden in the environment of a vehicle parking lock.
Applicant then argues that Belden discloses axial movement of pins to engage and disengage a clutch, not to lock. This is not persuasive since the clutch of Belden locks the shafts to one another for rotation together. Furthermore, the new rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is based on the combination of Drennen and Belden, and Drennen disclose the use of a coupling with pins similar to Belden in the environment of a vehicle parking lock.
Applicant then argues that “the stop and the transverse movement recited in the claim is described as being outside the form-fitting area”. This is not persuasive since Applicant’s amendment deleted that limitation from line 10 of claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment to line 1 of claim 1 which now requires the locking mechanism to be “supported by a vehicle” 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 Richard M. Lorence whose telephone number is 571-272-7094. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Thursday from 11:00 AM-7:00 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, John R. Olszewski can be reached at 571-272-2706. 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.
/RICHARD M LORENCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights