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 .
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 following features must be shown or the features canceled from the claims:
Claim 20: the “elongate press-in zones;”
Claim 22: “the force sensor is embedded directly in the motor;”
Claim 24: the “shaft end;”
Claim 27: “the mounting and connection elements;”
Claim 27: “wherein the control unit is mirror- symmetrical with regard to the mounting and connection elements;” and
Claim 28: “wherein, in the mounted position, the main printed circuit board is arranged over or above the parts in the vertical direction.”
No new matter should be entered.
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
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 16-29 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.
Regarding independent claim 16, the phrase “[a] control unit, in particular for a drum brake, the drum brake including a spreader unit with a transmission, a motor, a force sensor, a ratchet wheel, and an angle sensor, the control unit comprising: a single main printed circuit board wherein electronic components of the motor, the at least one coil, the force sensor, and the angle sensor are connected directly to the main printed circuit board” is indefinite because it is unclear whether none, some or all of the components of the drum bake are required elements of the claim. For example, the preamble is directed toward “[a] control unit . . . for a drum brake,” thereby implying that the claim is only directed toward the control unit. The body of the claim, however, recites that “the control unit comprising: a single main printed circuit board wherein electronic components of the motor, the at least one coil, the force sensor, and the angle sensor are connected directly to the main printed circuit board,” thereby implying that at least some of the components of the brake drum are required elements of the claim. Sinc the preamble and the body of the claim or contradictory with one another, the scope of the claim is unclear.
Regarding claim 19, the phrase “the housing may be closed by a cover, and wherein the cover may be removed without destruction” is indefinite because the use of “may” renders it unclear whether the subsequently recited elements are required or optional.
Regarding claim 20, the phrase “the mechanical assemblies” lacks antecedent basis thereby rendering it unclear which elements are being referenced.
Regarding claim 26, the phrase “the parts motor” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 26, the phrase “non-destructive removal . . . is prevented” is indefinite because it is unclear what structures are considered to provide prevention of non-destructive removal. Furthermore, it is unclear to which elements and to what degree that a removal process is considered to be “non-destructive.” For example, is removing solder or an adhesive considered non-destructive? Is cutting the housing non-destructive because the inner components remain intact? It is unclear because the housing, solder and/or adhesive is destroyed, but the individual functional components remain intact.
Regarding claim 27, the phrase “the mounting and connection elements” lacks antecedent basis, thereby rendering it unclear which elements are being recited.
Regarding claim 28, the phrase “the parts” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 30, the phrase “the drive components” lacks antecedent basis.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claims 16, 17, 20, 22, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wazaki et al. (US 2023/0249658) in view of Yasui et al. (US 2019/0023248).
Regarding claim 16, Wazaki discloses a control unit (ECW), in particular for a drum brake (see FIGS. 1, 2), the drum brake including a spreader unit (HN) with a transmission (GS), a motor (MT), a force sensor (FS), a ratchet wheel (RC), and an angle sensor (KA), the control unit comprising: a single main printed circuit board (ECW) wherein electronic components of the motor (DR), and the angle sensor (KA) are connected directly to the main printed circuit board (see FIG. 2).
Wazaki does not disclose at least one coil or that the at least one coil and the force sensor are directly connected to the main printed circuit board.
Yasui teaches a control unit (KBN) comprising at least one coil (LPF) and a force sensor (FBA), wherein the at least one coil and the force sensor are directly connected to the main printed circuit board (KBN) (see FIG. 7).
It would have been obvious to combine the at least one coil directly connected to the main printed circuit board to provide a noise reduction filter that reduces voltage fluctuation (see Yasui, ¶ 0059). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to directly connect the force sensor to the main printed circuit board to eliminate the need for intermediary devices and/or unnecessary connections (see e.g. Yasui, FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 17, Yasui teaches that the force sensor is connected to the main printed circuit board either via an electrical interface (PFB) (see FIG. 7) or via a sensory or magnetic interface.
Regarding claim 20, Yasui teaches that contact pins (PFB) on the main printed circuit board have elongate press-in zones in order to compensate for tolerances of the mechanical assemblies (see FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 22, Wazaki discloses that the angle sensor is embedded directly in the motor (see FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 29, Yasui teaches that the main printed circuit board does not include any passage openings going beyond electrically contacting the parts (see FIG. 7).
Claims 18, 19 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wazaki et al. (US 2023/0249658) in view of (US 2019/0023248), as applied to claim 16, above, and further in view of Bolik et al. (US 2016/0128208).
Regarding claim 18, Wazaki does not disclose that the control unit has a housing comprising fiber-reinforced plastic or cast lightweight metal.
Bolik teaches a control unit (see Abstract) comprising fiber-reinforced plastic (see ¶ 0009). It would have been obvious to configure the housing of the control unit from fiber-reinforced plastic to provide a control device that is easy and cost-effective to manufacture (see ¶ 0006), largely vibration-resistant (see ¶ 0006), and has optimized mechanical loadability (see ¶ 0009).
Regarding claim 19, Bolik teaches that the housing may be closed by a cover (32) (see FIG. 2), and wherein the cover may be removed without destruction (see ¶ 0038).
Regarding claim 25, Wazaki does not teach a connection plug arranged centrally. Bolik teaches a control unit (see Abstract) comprising a connection plug (46) arranged centrally (see FIG. 1). It would have been obvious to combine the connection plug of Bolik with the device of Wazaki to provide means for releasably connecting the circuit board to power and/or other control units.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wazaki et al. (US 2023/0249658) in view of Yasui et al. (US 2019/0023248), as applied to claim 20, above, and further in view of Day, Jr. et al. (US 2013/0316551).
Regarding claim 21, neither Wazaki nor Yasui disclose that the elongate press-in zones in the longitudinal direction corresponds at least to 1.2 times the thickness of the main printed circuit board.
Day teaches a circuit board assembly (see FIGS. 1-3) comprising connecting pins (30) having elongate press-in zones (L) in the longitudinal direction that is greater than the thickness of the main printed circuit board (see ¶ 0018, FIG. 3). Day does not disclose that the length of the connecting pins is at least 1.2 times the thickness of the circuit board. However, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” (see MPEP 2144.05.II). Here, Day recognizes that it is beneficial to have a connector pin length greater than the width of the circuit board to provide a sufficient length for the pin to extend through the circuit board, thereby providing a secure connection with good contact (see e.g. Day, ¶ 0023). As such, it would have been obvious to provide the connecting pins of the Wazaki/Yasui device to ensure the pins have sufficient length to extend through and securely attach to the circuit board.
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wazaki et al. (US 2023/0249658) in view of Yasui et al. (US 2019/0023248), as applied to claim 16, above, and further in view of Yasui et al. (US 2019/0016325) (hereinafter “Yasui ‘325”).
Regarding claim 23, Yasui ‘325 teaches that the angle sensor is either a magnetic sensor or a target wheel (see ¶ 0090). It would have been obvious to configure the angle sensor of Wazaki to utilize a magnetic sensor to implement a known configuration of angle sensor that is suitable for detecting a rotational angle of the motor (see e.g. Yasui ‘325, ¶ 0090).
Regarding claim 24, Yasui ‘325 teaches that the angle sensor is a magnetic sensor and is arranged on an opposite shaft end of the motor (see ¶ 0090; FIG. 5). It would have been obvious to configure the angle sensor of Wazaki to utilize a magnetic sensor to implement a known configuration of angle sensor that is suitable for detecting a rotational angle of the motor (see e.g. Yasui ‘325, ¶ 0090).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wazaki et al. (US 2023/0249658) in view of Yasui et al. (US 2019/0023248), as applied to claim 16, above, and further in view of Maier (DE 10 2018 216 597) (machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 26, Wazaki does not disclose that non-destructive removal of the parts motor, the coil, the force sensor, the angle sensor, and/or the main printed circuit board is prevented.
Maier teaches a circuit board wherein the non-destructive removal of the parts is prevented (see machine translation, ¶ 0010).
It would have been obvious to prevent the non-destructive removal of the parts motor, the coil, the force sensor, the angle sensor by encapsulation to increase the mechanical resistance to detachment (see e.g. Maier, ¶ 0010).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wazaki et al. (US 2023/0249658) in view of Yasui et al. (US 2019/0023248), as applied to claim 20, above, and further in view of Fukuda et al. (US 2022/0159838).
Regarding claim 27, Wazaki does not disclose that the control unit is mirror- symmetrical with regard to the mounting and connection elements.
Fukuda teaches a control unit (23) that is mirror- symmetrical with regard to the mounting (23Ab) and connection (105) elements.
It would have been obvious to configure the control unit of Wazaki to be mirror-symmetrical with respect to the mounting and connection elements to provide even support and distribution of forces over the entirety of the control unit.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wazaki et al. (US 2023/0249658) in view of Yasui et al. (US 2019/0023248), as applied to claim 20, above, and further in view of Meyer et al. (US 2004/0207255).
Regarding claim 28, Wazaki does not disclose that in the mounted position, the main printed circuit board is arranged over or above the parts in the vertical direction.
Meyer teaches that a main printed circuit board arranged over or above parts in the vertical direction (see ¶ 0023; FIG. 2).
It would have been obvious to configure the main printed circuit board of Wazaki to be located above the parts so that the parts can be supported by the frame of the device instead of the circuit board itself (see e.g. Meyer, ¶ 0023; FIG. 2).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wazaki et al. (US 2023/0249658) in view of (US 2019/0023248) and further in view of Bolik et al. (US 2016/0128208).
Regarding claim 30, Wazaki discloses a brake assembly (see Abstract, FIGS. 1, 2) comprising: a spreader unit (HN) with a transmission (GS), a motor (MT), a force sensor (FS), a ratchet wheel (RC), an angle sensor (KA), and a control unit (ECW) comprising a single main printed circuit board (ECW) wherein electronic components of the motor (DR), and the angle sensor (KA) are connected directly to the main printed circuit board (see FIG. 2), and wherein the brake assembly includes a brake drum base plate (PL) designed in such a way that all the forces of the drive components are absorbed by the brake drum base plate (see FIG. 1; ¶ 0020).
Wazaki does not disclose at least one coil or that the at least one coil and the force sensor are directly connected to the main printed circuit board.
Yasui teaches a control unit (KBN) comprising at least one coil (LPF) and a force sensor (FBA), wherein the at least one coil and the force sensor are directly connected to the main printed circuit board (KBN) (see FIG. 7).
It would have been obvious to combine the at least one coil directly connected to the main printed circuit board to provide a noise reduction filter that reduces voltage fluctuation (see Yasui, ¶ 0059). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to directly connect the force sensor to the main printed circuit board to eliminate the need for intermediary devices and/or unnecessary connections (see e.g. Yasui, FIG. 5).
Wazaki does not disclose that the control unit has a housing comprising fiber-reinforced plastic or cast lightweight metal.
Bolik teaches a control unit (see Abstract) comprising fiber-reinforced plastic (see ¶ 0009). It would have been obvious to configure the housing of the control unit from fiber-reinforced plastic to provide a control device that is easy and cost-effective to manufacture (see ¶ 0006), largely vibration-resistant (see ¶ 0006), and has optimized mechanical loadability (see ¶ 0009).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J LANE whose telephone number is (571)270-5988. 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, Robert 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.
/NICHOLAS J LANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
August 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights