DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Status of Claims
This is the first Office Action on the merits for application no. 18/739,670 filed on June 11th, 2024. Claims 1-22 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 11th, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement was considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Regarding Claim 5 (line 2), please change the recitation of “thereby tracking the length of the ball screw assembly” to - - thereby tracking [[the]] a starting length of the ball screw assembly - - to establish antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 12 (lines 2-3), please change the recitation of “a pin that moves axially relative to pinion gear between the first condition and the second condition” to - - a pin that moves axially relative to the pinion gear between [[the]] a first condition and [[the]] a second condition - - to correct minor informalities regarding antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 13 (lines 2-3), please change the recitation of “connected to both brake shoes for biasing the brake shoes towards one another, the bi-stable locking mechanism being activated to limit retraction of the brake shoes by return spring” to - - connected to both of the brake shoes for biasing the brake shoes towards one another, the bi-stable locking mechanism being activated to limit retraction of the brake shoes by the return spring - - to correct minor informalities regarding antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 14 (line 2), please change the recitation of “the ball screw nut” to - - the ball screw [[nut]] assembly - - as this feature is previously referred to in claim 1.
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 1-14, 20 and 22 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1 (last clause), in the recitation of “a bi-stable locking mechanism for selectively locking the motor to prevent torque transfer from a back-driving ball screw assembly to the motor” the difference between the “ball screw assembly” recited in claim 1 (line 4) and the “back-driving ball screw assembly” recited in claim 1 (last clause) is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “a bi-stable locking mechanism for selectively locking the motor to prevent torque transfer from [[a]] the back-driving ball screw assembly to the motor” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 4, in the recitation of “wherein the bi-stable locking mechanism fixes a length of the ball screw assembly to apply a parking brake to the vehicle” the difference between the “drum brake” recited in claim 1 and the “parking brake” recited in claim 4 is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the bi-stable locking mechanism fixes a length of the ball screw assembly to apply a parking brake function of the drum brake to the vehicle” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 9, in the recitation of “wherein the bi-stable locking mechanism locks the pinion gear during the braking event to apply a parking brake” the difference between the “drum brake” recited in claim 1 and the “parking brake” recited in claim 9 is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the bi-stable locking mechanism locks the pinion gear during the braking event to apply a parking brake function of the drum brake” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 10, in the recitation of “wherein the spindle is not self-locking with the nut” the metes and bounds of the negative limitation is unclear as the Applicant’s disclosure has not defined clear boundaries to ascertain the scope of the claim. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 20, in the recitation of “activating the bi-stable locking mechanism to lock the pinion gear during the braking event to apply a parking brake” the difference between the “drum brake” recited in claim 15 and the “parking brake” recited in claim 20 is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “activating the bi-stable locking mechanism to lock the pinion gear during the braking event to apply a parking brake function of the drum brake” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 22, in the recitation of “wherein the spindle is not self-locking with the nut” the metes and bounds of the negative limitation is unclear as the Applicant’s disclosure has not defined clear boundaries to ascertain the scope of the claim. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 2-14 are rejected based upon their dependency to a rejected base claim.
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)(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 1-2, 4-5, 8-10, 12-16 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Boros (US 2025/0341241).
Regarding Claim 1, Boros teaches an apparatus (see Fig. 3) for a brake drum (“drum” 80) of a vehicle having a drum brake assembly (see Fig. 3) with first and second brake shoes (“pads” 76), comprising:
a motor (“electric motor” 14) having a pinion gear (first of “a plurality of spur gears” 22a);
a ball screw assembly (“spindle nut” 24 and “spindle” 18) having a nut (24) for receiving torque from the pinion gear (first of 22a) and a spindle (18) threaded with the nut (24),
the nut (24) being aligned with the first brake shoe (one of 76) and the spindle (18) being aligned with the second brake shoe (the other 76),
the motor (14) being actuatable for rotating the nut (24) to move the nut (24) and the spindle (18) away from one another for moving the brake shoes (76) to apply braking force to the brake drum (80) during a braking event; and
a bi-stable locking mechanism (“locking device” 36) for selectively locking the motor (14) to prevent torque transfer from a back-driving ball screw assembly (24, 18; see 112(b) rejection above) to the motor (14; [0026] – “locking device 36 also comprises a locking pawl 48, which can be brought into and out of engagement with the ratchet wheel 40 by means of a bistable electromagnet 52 in order to switch the freewheel”).
Regarding Claim 2, Boros teaches the apparatus recited in claim 1,
wherein the bi-stable locking mechanism (Fig. 3, 36) selectively locks the pinion gear (first of 22a) to adjust a starting length of the ball screw assembly (24, 18) prior to each braking event to account for wear on the brake shoes (76; [0009] – “the method includes the steps of moving back the brake actuator after a braking operation by a fixed predefined distance and controlling the locking device to fix the brake actuator in the retracted position. Moving back the brake actuator can be actively caused by the electric motor or passively by a spring, for example. The moved back fixed distance is constant over the entire service life and preferably corresponds to a spacing between the brake pad and the brake disc or drum. A constant spacing between the friction partners can thus be maintained despite wearing of the brake pad, so that wearing of the brake pad can be compensated. Fixing the brake actuator in this position makes it possible to hold it with the spacing without current”).
Regarding Claim 4, Boros teaches the apparatus recited in claim 1,
wherein the bi-stable locking mechanism (Fig. 3, 36) fixes a length of the ball screw assembly (24, 18) to apply a parking brake (76, 80; see 112(b) rejection above) to the vehicle ([0012] – “locking device is preferably activated when the vehicle is stationary and the brake is activated in order to create a parking brake. Activating the locking device locks the brake in a brake release direction. The locking device is held stable in this position so that the motor vehicle can be kept permanently braked when it is parked”).
Regarding Claim 5, Boros teaches the apparatus recited in claim 1,
further comprising a control system (Fig. 3, “control device” 30) for tracking a rotational position of the motor (14) and thereby tracking the length of the ball screw assembly (24, 18),
the control system (30) activating the bi-stable locking mechanism (36) to adjust the starting length of the ball screw assembly (24, 18) to maintain a target clearance (“spacing” s) between the brake shoes (76) and the brake drum (80) prior to each braking event (see [0009] above; [0015] – “the point of contact is ascertained using values of the motor current, the motor speed and/or the motor position. The motor values are typically already being measured” and [0016] – “electromechanical brake also comprises a control device which is configured to control the locking device to fix the brake actuator after the brake actuator is moved back. Such an electromechanical brake substantially achieves the advantages mentioned with respect to the methods”).
Regarding Claim 8, Boros teaches the apparatus recited in claim 1,
wherein the bi-stable locking mechanism (Figs. 2-3, 36) is electromagnetic (“bistable electromagnet” 52).
Regarding Claim 9, Boros teaches the apparatus recited in claim 1,
wherein the bi-stable locking mechanism (Fig. 3, 36) locks the pinion gear (first of 22a) during the braking event to apply a parking brake (76, 80; see [0012] above; see 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding Claim 10, Boros teaches the apparatus recited in claim 1,
wherein the spindle (Fig. 3, 18) is not self-locking with the nut (24; see Fig. 3; see 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding Claim 12, Boros teaches the apparatus recited in claim 10,
wherein the bi-stable locking mechanism (Figs. 2-3, 36) includes a pin (“locking pawl” 48) that moves axially relative to pinion gear (first of 22a) between the first condition and the second condition (see [0009]; see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 13, Boros teaches the apparatus recited in claim 1,
further comprising a return spring (Fig. 3, “tension spring” 84) configured to be connected to both brake shoes (76) for biasing the brake shoes (76) towards one another (see Fig. 3),
the bi-stable locking mechanism (36) being activated to limit retraction of the brake shoes (76) by return spring (84; [0030] – “two drum brake pads 76 are connected to one another via a tension spring 84 so that they are loaded in a release direction”).
Regarding Claim 14, Boros teaches the apparatus recited in claim 1,
wherein at least one gear stage (Fig. 3, remaining portions of 22a) is provided between the pinion gear (first of 22a) and the ball screw nut (24, 18) for transferring torque therebetween (see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 15, Boros teaches a method of operating a drum brake assembly (see Fig. 3) for a brake drum (80) of a vehicle having first and second brake shoes (76), comprising:
positioning a ball screw assembly (24, 18) having a starting length between the first and second brake shoes (76) for moving the first and second brake shoes (76) to apply braking force to the brake drum (80) during a braking event ([0025] – “spindle gear arrangement 22 also comprises a spindle nut 24, which acts on a brake actuator 28 to apply a braking force FB”);
coupling a motor (14) to the ball screw assembly (24, 18) for adjusting the length thereof ([0025] – “an electric motor 14 which acts on a spindle 18 of a gear unit 22”);
and activating a bi-stable locking mechanism (36) for preventing rotation of the motor (14) to thereby prevent back-drive of the ball screw assembly (24, 18) to adjust the starting length of the ball screw assembly (24, 18) prior to each braking event to account for wear on the brake shoes (76; see [0009] above; see 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding Claim 16, Boros teaches the method recited in claim 15,
further comprising selecting the starting length to maintain a target clearance (Fig. 3, s) between the brake shoes (76) and the brake drum (80) prior to each braking event (see [0009] above).
Regarding Claim 21, Boros teaches the method recited in claim 15,
further comprising: monitoring a current draw on the motor (Fig. 3, 14) during a first braking event (see [0009], [0015] and [0016] above); and
increasing the starting length of the ball screw assembly (24, 18) prior to a second braking event in response to the monitored current draw (see [0009], [0015] and [0016] above).
Regarding Claim 22, Boros teaches the method recited in claim 15,
wherein the spindle (Fig. 3, 18) is not self-locking with the nut (24; see Fig. 3; see 112(b) rejection above).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boros (US 2025/0341241), in view of Chelaidite (US 2023/0150467).
Regarding Claim 3, Boros teaches the apparatus recited in claim 2.
Boros does not teach “wherein the bi-stable locking mechanism directly engages the pinion gear to lock the pinion gear”.
Chelaidite teaches a bi-stable locking mechanism (Figs. 7-8, “locking actuator” 112) directly engages a pinion gear (“output gear wheel” 40) of an electric motor (“electric motor” 28) to lock the pinion gear (40; see Figs. 7-8; [0095] – “the locking actuator 112 is designed as a bistable solenoid”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to relocate the bi-stable locking mechanism taught by Boros as suggested by Chelaidite, such that “wherein the bi-stable locking mechanism directly engages the pinion gear to lock the pinion gear”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, and have the obvious advantage of reducing the number of components needed to lock the ball screw assembly taught by Boros and provide a compact design.
Claims 11 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boros (US 2025/0341241) as evidenced by Sala (US 2018/0135710), in view of Chelaidite (US 2023/0150467).
Regarding Claim 11, Boros teaches the apparatus recited in claim 1,
wherein the bi-stable locking mechanism (Fig. 3, 36) has a first condition locking the pinion gear (first of 22a) in response to receiving electrical power of a first polarity (as evidenced by Sala) and has a second condition retracted from the pinion gear (first of 22a) for allowing rotation of the pinion gear (first of 22a) in response to receiving electrical power of a second polarity (Sala teaches “the electromagnetic linear actuator 34 is of the bistable type, for example a bistable solenoid actuator, which comprises a single winding adapted to move the selector element 15 from the first position to the second position when powered with “positive” current, and adapted to move the selector element 15 from the second position to the first position when powered with “negative” current or of direction/phase opposite to the preceding one” [0090]).
Boros does not teach “wherein the bi-stable locking mechanism…engaging…the pinion gear”.
Chelaidite teaches a bi-stable locking mechanism (Figs. 7-8, 112) engaging a pinion gear (40) of an electric motor (28) to lock the pinion gear (40; see Figs. 7-8; see [0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to relocate the bi-stable locking mechanism taught by Boros as suggested by Chelaidite, such that “wherein the bi-stable locking mechanism…engaging…the pinion gear”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, and have the obvious advantage of reducing the number of components needed to lock the ball screw assembly taught by Boros and provide a compact design.
Regarding Claim 18, Boros teaches the method recited in claim 15,
wherein the bi-stable locking mechanism (Fig. 3, 36) has a first condition of locking a pinion gear (first of 22a) of the motor (14) in response to receiving electrical power of a first polarity (as evidenced by Sala) and having a second condition retracted from the pinion gear (first of 22a) for allowing rotation thereof in response to receiving electrical power of a second polarity (Sala teaches “the electromagnetic linear actuator 34 is of the bistable type, for example a bistable solenoid actuator, which comprises a single winding adapted to move the selector element 15 from the first position to the second position when powered with “positive” current, and adapted to move the selector element 15 from the second position to the first position when powered with “negative” current or of direction/phase opposite to the preceding one” [0090]).
Boros does not teach “wherein the bi-stable locking mechanism…engaging…the pinion gear”.
Chelaidite teaches a bi-stable locking mechanism (Figs. 7-8, 112) engaging a pinion gear (40) of an electric motor (28) to lock the pinion gear (40; see Figs. 7-8; see [0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to relocate the bi-stable locking mechanism taught by Boros as suggested by Chelaidite, such that “wherein the bi-stable locking mechanism…engaging…an pinion gear of the motor”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, and have the obvious advantage of reducing the number of components needed to lock the ball screw assembly taught by Boros and provide a compact design.
Regarding Claim 19, Boros and Chelaidite teach the method recited in claim 18,
Boros teaches wherein the bi-stable locking mechanism (Figs. 2-3, 36) includes a pin (48) that moves axially relative to the pinion gear (first of 22a) between the first condition and the second condition (see [0009]).
Regarding Claim 20, Boros and Chelaidite teach the method recited in claim 18,
Boros teaches further comprising activating the bi-stable locking mechanism (Fig. 3, 36) to lock the pinion gear (first of 22a) during the braking event to apply a parking brake (76; see [0012] above; see 112(b) rejection above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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 rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 17 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.
Reasons for allowance, if applicable, will be the subject of a separate communication to the Applicant or patent owner, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.104 and MPEP § 1302.14.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, Applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. The prior art of Gadke (US 2025/0180084), Stanojkovski (US 2025/0320901), Wazaki (US 2023/0249658), Scott (US 5,785,157), Dye (US 6,083,133), Hofmann (US 8,408,367), Shaw (US 5,024,299) and Schwegler (US 2025/0377029) listed in the attached "Notice of References Cited" disclose similar drum brakes comprising motors and ball screw assemblies related to various aspects of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James J. Taylor II whose telephone number is (571) 272-4074. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
JAMES J. TAYLOR II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655
/JAMES J TAYLOR II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights