DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information disclosure statement has been received and considered.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 20-24, 31,32,37,38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikuma et al. U.S. 2020/0156612 in view of Kaneda et al. 10,138,965 and CN 104806669 B.
Regarding claim 20 Ikuma shows in figures 1,2 and 3A,3B:
A linear actuating device 10,12 for a brake caliper adapted to bias at least one brake pad 26,28 to abut against a braking surface of a brake disc 14, wherein said linear actuating device comprises: a motor 44 comprising a rotating drive shaft 52 and a stator 44A, wherein said rotating drive shaft 52 comprises a tubular body forming an inner drive shaft chamber (Inherent); said rotating drive shaft 52 is directly and operatively connected to a “harmonic transmission” i.e. cycloid reduction gear 46 ; said harmonic transmission 46 is directly and operatively connected to a rotary-to- linear motion conversion device 50,80 adapted to transform a rotary motion into a linear motion; said rotary-to-linear motion conversion device 50,80 is adapted to bias said at least one brake pad 26,28 to abut against said braking surface along an axial direction; and said rotary-to-linear motion conversion device 50,80, in a retracted position, is at least partially accommodated inside said inner drive shaft chamber (see figure 2).
Lacking in Ikuma is a specific description of the cycloid reduction gear 46 being a ‘harmonic transmission’.
However as broadly claimed this is believed to be the case.
Nevertheless the reference to Kaneda shows a similar type of brake actuator to that of Ikuma as best seen in figure 1 with a reduction mechanism shown at 45. In col 8 lines 58-62 Kaneda states:
However, this reduction mechanism may be constructed with use of only the planetary gear reduction mechanism 45. Further, a reducer based on another known technique, such as a cycloid reduction mechanism and a harmonic reducer, may be combined with the planetary gear reduction mechanism 45.
The reference to CN ‘669 B is relied upon to also show a brake actuator of the 2 aforementioned references but more specifically shows a harmonic reducer at 16-18.
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have replaced and/or used a ‘harmonic transmission’, as broadly claimed, for the cycloid speed reducer 46 of Ikuma, as collectively taught by Kaneda and CN ‘669 B, in those vehicle brake applications where compact design, and high-torque and more precise control are needed.
Regarding claim 21 Ikuma, as modified above and as broadly claimed, shows the harmonic transmission is ‘superimposed’ on said rotary-to-linear motion conversion device, or wherein said rotary-to-linear motion conversion device comprises a screw nut which meshes with a worm screw that translates along the axial direction upon a rotation of the screw nut, and wherein said harmonic transmission is superimposed on said screw nut.
Regarding claim 22 Ikuma, as modified above and as broadly claimed, shows the rotary-to-linear motion conversion device 50,80 is accommodated radially, with respect to an axis of the device, inside said tubular body of the rotating drive shaft, or wherein said rotary-to-linear motion conversion device, in the retracted position, is completely accommodated inside said inner drive shaft chamber except for a pushing plate adapted to rest on the at least one brake pad.
Regarding claim 23 Ikuma, as modified above ,and as broadly claimed, shows harmonic transmission comprises a harmonic reducer, wherein said harmonic reducer is elastically deformed and rotated by a rotational wave generator, and wherein said rotational wave generator is made at least partially in one piece with said rotating drive shaft.
Regarding claim 24 Ikuma, as modified above and as broadly claimed, shows the linear actuating device comprises at least one of the following features: said motor is an electric motor.
Regarding claims 31,32,37 and 38 as readily apparent from the drawings these limitations are met.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25-30,33-36 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7123. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 A.M.-7:00P.M..
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, Rob Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
9/1/26
Prosecution Insights