DETAILED ACTION
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 the Application
This Office Action is in response to amendments and arguments received on June 26, 2026. Claim 10 and 19 have been amended. Claims 1-9 were previously cancelled. Claims 10-20 remain pending wherein claims 14-20 are withdrawn from consideration. This communication is the second Office Action on the Merits.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
For readability, all claim language has been bolded. Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parenthesis. Any further explanations that were deemed necessary by the Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation. The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regards to claim 10, Applicant has amended to include:
wherein applying negative torque from the parking brake includes the parking brake receiving voltage from a voltage source and in response generating brake engagement via movement of a plate.
This limitation is not supported by Applicant’s originally filed disclosure, and is considered new matter. Corrective action is required.
A search of Applicant published disclosure yields the following:
[0033] Without the application of a voltage via a voltage source 223 to the parking brake 200, the friction plate 208 may be in contact with both the armature plate 209 and the friction flange 213, and an air gap 225 may be maintained between the armature plate 209 and an insulating shell 221 encasing a plurality of conductive coils 219. Additionally, the armature plate 209 may be compressed against the friction plate 208 by a set of compression springs 217, which may apply force to a face of the armature plate 209 opposite the face in contact with the friction plate 208. Thus, without the application of a voltage to the parking brake 200, the parking brake 200 may be engaged in a braking mode, applying a negative torque to the electric motor through face-sharing contact of the friction plate 208 and the armature plate 209. The engagement of negative torque from the parking brake 200 may reduce or prevent the friction plate 208, the splined center hub 211 and the friction flange 213 from co-rotating in response to a torque applied by the electric motor. In the current embodiment shown, the set of compression springs 217 contains two springs. Upon application of a voltage (e.g. a DC voltage) to the parking brake 200, current may circulate through the plurality of conductive coils 219 in order to generate an electromagnetic field. The application of the electromagnetic field may then pull the armature plate 209 to move in a direction parallel to the central axis 205 to be in face-sharing contact with the insulating shell 221, reducing a distance of the air gap 225 between the armature plate 209 and the insulating shell 221 to zero, and opening up an air gap between the friction plate 208 and the armature plate 209. Thus, upon application of a voltage to the plurality of conductive coils 219 of the parking brake 200, the armature plate 209 may be released from the friction plate 208, thus releasing the brake.
Thus, receiving voltage in Applicant disclosure removes negative torque by releasing the brake, the opposite of applying negative torque, as claimed. No other alternate embodiments have been discovered in Applicant disclosure. This limitation is therefore considered new matter. Corrective action or clarification is required.
In order to overcome the new matter rejections above, the Examiner requires applicant to cancel or remove the cited new matter, or to traverse this rejection with a detailed explanation of their position, including paragraph citations and/or drawing figures of how the cited limitations are fully supported by applicant‘s original disclosure.
Dependent claims of the rejected claims above are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) at least due to dependency on these claims.
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 10-13 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 applicant regards as the invention.
In regards to claim 10: Applicant has amended to include:
wherein applying negative torque from the parking brake includes the parking brake receiving voltage from a voltage source and in response generating brake engagement via movement of a plate.
First, the scope of the recited relationship between application of voltage, movement of the plate and engagement of the parking brake is inconsistent with the operation of the parking brake of Applicant disclosure, as outlined in the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection above. Therefore, there is also a lack of structural support for this limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Second, this limitation is indefinite because the term in response generating brake engagement does not explicitly identify exactly what the brake engagement is in response to. While one of ordinary skill may conclude that this is in response to the claimed the parking brake receiving voltage from a voltage source, the metes and bounds of the casual relationship claimed between received voltage, plate movement and brake engagement cannot be determined with reasonable certainty and clarity. Corrective action or clarification is required.
All other dependent claims of the indefinite claims detailed above are also indefinite at least by virtue of depending on the indefinite claims detailed 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuki (US 20190315323 A1) herein Matsuki, in view of Hughes et al. (US 20030169002 A1) herein Hughes and Fuchs et al. (US 20100230216 A1) herein Fuchs.
In regards to Claim 10, Matsuki discloses the following:
10. A system for a vehicle, (see at least [0008 “vehicle”) comprising:
an electric motor coupled to an energy storage device providing positive and negative torque to wheels of the vehicle; (see at least [0024] “electric motor 26 is operable to drive the wheel 20” and [0031] “In the driving operation of the electric motor 26, the motor driver 42 is controlled based on the control signals from the drive controller 40 and converts electric power supplied from the battery BAT to driving electric power” and “In the regenerative operation of the electric motor 26… regenerative electric power inputted from the electric motor 26 to the charging electric power and outputs such regenerative electric power to the battery BAT.)
a parking brake actuable to apply a varying range of negative torques to the wheels of the vehicle; (see at least [0022] “parking brake 22 is a general mechanical brake” and [0039] “parking torque Ptr corresponds to the braking torque Str of the electric motor 26 that maintains the wheel 20 stopped by controlling the electric motor 26 while the vehicle is parked” and [0040] “The braking force Fs is calculated based on the sum torque that is calculated by adding the flat road parking torque Pftr to the parking torque Ptr. The flat road parking torque Pftr corresponds to the braking torque that is necessary for the wheel 20 to maintain the wheel 20 stopped” and [0054] “At Step S160, the drive controller 40 calculates the parking torque Ptr based on the control amount of the electric motor 26 (the braking torque Str)”)
and a controller storing instructions in non-transitory memory (see at least Fig. 1 drive controller 40” and [0039] “stored in the drive controller 40”) that, when executed, cause the controller to:
in response to an indication of braking, (see at least [0023] “service brake 24 is connected to the drive controller 40 through a rotation angle detector such as potentiometer (not shown) mounted to the brake pedal, and generates voltage corresponding to the pedal stroke applied by the operator.”, see also Fig. 2 step S105 “yes” and step S110 “yes”) apply negative torque from each of the electric motor and the parking brake simultaneously, (see at least Fig. 2, step S150 and S160)
It is noted that while Matsuki discloses generating both electric motor negative torque and parking brake negative torque based on a brake operation flag (step S105) and control switch operation (step S110) Matsuki does not explicitly disclose performing this simultaneously.
However, this is more explicitly taught by Hughes. (see at least [0009] “regenerative braking system cooperates with a friction brake system”, [0040] “displacement of the handbrake lever 24 operates regenerative braking in parallel with a conventional drum or disc friction brake.” And “braking control module would use a duty factor map to blend regenerative and friction braking so that the implementation of regenerative braking would be transparent to the rider.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Hughes with the invention of Matsuki, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing a braking system that is more energy efficient, and simpler, than that provided by only friction brakes, (Hughes, [0003]) and/or with the motivation of implementing regenerative braking such that the implementation would be transparent to the rider. (Hughes, [0040])
As best understood, Matsuki discloses the following:
wherein applying negative torque from the parking brake includes the parking brake receiving voltage from a voltage source (see at least [0028] “parking brake actuator 32 is, for example, an electric motor, which drives (rotates) the screw shaft 30SS and moves the slider 30SL back and forth along the axial direction of the guide rail 30GR” and [0034] “drive controller 40 calculates the braking force Fs generated by the parking brake 22 based on the tractive force produced by the wire W. When applying the braking force to the parking brake 22, the drive controller 40 calculates the tractive force of the wire W based on the braking force Fs required for the parking brake 22 and controls the parking brake actuator 32 so that the calculated tractive force of the wire W is produced.” And [0056] “drive controller 40… controls the parking brake actuator 32 to generate the calculated tractive force.”)
Matsuki is silent, but Fuchs teaches the following:
and in response generating brake engagement via movement of a plate. (see at least [0005] “preferably being used as a parking brake”, [0007] “electromagnetic spring pressure brake”, [0009] “The spring, when slackened, forces the plunger with or via the brake device against the part to be braked… For the opening of the brake arrangement, the magnet arrangement is provided. This includes a coil arrangement with armature plate which are movable relative to each other, the moving part being connected to the plunger”)
Examiner Note: It should also be noted that Fuchs teaches the arrangement disclosed in Applicant published disclosure [0033] detailed in the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection above. Therefore, in the alternative, Fuchs teaches all the amended additions of claim 10, as interpreted in view of [0033].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Fuchs with the invention of Matsuki, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of delivering satisfactory results with smaller dimensions than pneumatic or hydraulic brake systems, and operate with less loss and with fewer vulnerable components. (Fuchs, [0004])
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuki in view of Hughes and Fuchs as applied, in further view of Stubner (US 20060196290 A1).
In regards to Claim 11, Matsuki discloses the following:
11. The system of claim 10, wherein the vehicle is a fork lift, (see at least [0035] “vehicle 1 shown in FIG. 4 is an electric vehicle driven by electric power, for example, a forklift truck”)
Matsuki is silent, but Stubner teaches the following:
and wherein the wheels of the vehicle (see abstract “lift truck”, [0002] “fork lift truck” and [0013] “controllable wheel of a lift truck”) are coupled to the electric motor via one or more gears, a speed of the vehicle directly proportional to a speed of the electric motor. (see at least [0007] “The transmission itself is of a two stage design, whereby the first stage is applied to the drive motor with a spur gear meshing, while the second stage regulates the controllable wheel with a bevel gear mesh. The two transmission stages are bound together by a drive shaft supported in the housing, while the controllable wheel is non-rotatable bound with the output drive side bevel gear and a controllable wheel gearset and/or the bevel gear”, see also [0003] “gearing includes a second ratio stage determined by a pinion shaft and a crown gear”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Stubner with the invention of Matsuki, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing a simpler system that takes up as small as possible space and to simplify mounting and disassembly of the wheel drive system. (Stubner, [0006])
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuki in view of Hughes and Fuchs as applied, in further view of Plamper et al. (EP 2226226 A2) herein Plamper.
In regards to Claim 12, Matsuki is silent, but Plamper teaches the following:
12. (Original) The system of claim 10, wherein applying negative torque from each of the electric motor and the parking brake simultaneously includes, between the indication of braking and the vehicle coming to a stop, applying at a constant level a first level of negative torque from the parking brake and a second level of negative torque from the electric motor, (see at least [0008] “applying a constant dynamic brake force to the motor axle with the reversible electric rotating machine, applying a complementary friction brake force to the motor axle with the motor axle friction brake means,” and [0009] “dynamic brake force is constant over the complete speed range of the rail vehicle”)
the first level of negative torque lower than a maximum possible negative torque applicable from the parking brake (see at least [0014] “constant dynamic brake force is chosen equal to or less than the force applied by the reversible electric rotating machine to the motor axle at the maximum speed of the rail vehicle such that the reversible rotating machine is always able to apply this force,”, see also [0016] “applying the complementary friction brake force to the motor axle with the motor axle friction brake means, applying an emergency braking force to the trailer axle with the trailer axle friction brake means, such that the sum of the constant dynamic brake force and the complementary friction brake force equals the emergency braking force”, inherently including a peak or maximum complementary friction brake force) and the second level of negative torque lower than another maximum possible negative torque applicable from the electric motor. (see at least [0014] “More preferably, the predetermined maximum dynamic force is equal to or less than the brake that the reversible electric rotating machine is able to apply”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Plamper with the invention of Matsuki, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of helping to minimize wear and to optimize energy regeneration. (Plamper, [0003])
In regards to Claim 13, Matsuki is silent, but Plamper teaches the following:
13. (New) The system of claim 10, wherein applying the negative torque from each of the electric motor and the parking brake simultaneously includes applying a constant negative torque from the electric motor and applying a further constant negative torque from the parking brake simultaneously. (see at least [0008] “applying a constant dynamic brake force to the motor axle with the reversible electric rotating machine, applying a complementary friction brake force to the motor axle with the motor axle friction brake means,” and [0009] “dynamic brake force is constant over the complete speed range of the rail vehicle”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Plamper with the invention of Matsuki, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of helping to minimize wear and to optimize energy regeneration. (Plamper, [0003])
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered. However, with respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached above in this FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
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 extension fee 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 Jason Roberson, whose telephone number is (571) 272-7793. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday thru Friday between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM. The examiner may also be reached through e-mail at Jason.Roberson@USPTO.GOV, or via FAX at (571) 273-7793. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571) 272-7691.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patient Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the PAIR system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule either an in-person or a telephone interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
Sincerely,
/JASON R ROBERSON/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
September 3, 2026
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights