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 because the reference numerals in the written description do not correspond to what is shown in the drawings. For example, the specification (see e.g., page 10, lines 5-15) references:
- “a pressure element 3” which appears to be a cylinder housing in Figure 2;
- “a housing 7” which appears to be a mounting bracket in Figure 2;
- “a circumferentially closed casing wall 8” which is not shown in the drawings;
- “an axial opening 9” which appears to be a bolt or screw in Figure 2;
- “a housing interior 10” which is not shown in the drawings; and
- “a displacement axis 4” which appears to be a cylinder housing in Figure 2.
Many additional discrepancies are present throughout the written description.
Additionally, the drawings of the present application do not match the drawings of the PCT application to which a priority benefit is claimed. For purposes of examination, the drawings in the PCT application will be examined since these drawings appear to correspond to the written description of the present application.
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 § 102
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 16, 23, 25-28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Miwa Shoichi (WO 2023/190459). All citations to Miwa Shoichi will be made with respect to EP 4 502 421, which is an English-language publication corresponding to WO 2023/190459.
Regarding claim 16, Miwa Shoichi discloses an actuation device for a brake system (see EP 4 502, 421; Abstract, FIGS. 1-6), comprising: an electric machine (26), wherein a rotor of the electric machine is arranged on a rotatably mounted drive shaft (26a) in a rotationally fixed manner (see ¶ 0063); a displaceably mounted pressure element (23b); and a transmission device (27), using which the drive shaft is operatively connected to the pressure element (see FIG. 2), wherein the transmission device has a displaceable threaded spindle (27a) (see ¶ 0062); wherein a rotation-locking element (37) is rotationally fixed to the threaded spindle (see ¶ 0070); wherein the rotation-locking element interacts with a housing of the actuation device and/or with an element (42) of the actuation device that is arranged on the housing in a fixed manner (see ¶ 0071), to form an anti-rotation device for the threaded spindle (see ¶ 0074); and wherein a rotationally fixed connection between the rotation-locking element and the threaded spindle is formed by a form-fitting connection (see ¶ 0070).
Regarding claim 23, Miwa Shoichi discloses that the rotation-locking element is axially fixed to the threaded spindle (see FIG. 4; see ¶ 0070).
Regarding claim 25, Miwa Shoichi discloses that the rotation-locking element is axially fixed to the threaded spindle by press-fitting the rotation-locking element and/or by press-fitting the threaded spindle (see FIG. 4; see ¶ 0070).
Regarding claim 26, Miwa Shoichi discloses that the threaded spindle has a first end portion facing the pressure element (see FIG. 4), and the rotation-locking element is arranged on the first end portion (see FIG. 4).
Regarding claim 27, Miwa Shoichi discloses that the rotation-locking element has an annular portion (38), and wherein the threaded spindle is inserted into an opening in the annular portion (see FIGS. 3, 4).
Regarding claim 28, Miwa Shoichi discloses that the rotation-locking element has at least one radial protrusion (39), which radially engages in a radial depression (36) in the housing of the actuation device to form the anti-rotation device (see FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 30, Miwa Shoichi discloses that the housing is a cylindrical extrusion profile (22) (see FIG. 2).
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 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miwa Shoichi (WO 2023/190459), as applied to claim 16, above, and further in view of Kawahara et al. (US 2012/0247240).
Regarding 17, Miwa Shoichi does not disclose that the form-fitting connection is formed by at least one radially protruding driver element.
Kawahara teaches an actuation device (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-9) comprising a rotationally fixed connection between a rotation-locking element (34) and a threaded spindle (24), formed by a form-fitting connection formed by at least one radially protruding driver element (see ¶ 0089, FIG. 9; spline profile comprises at least one radially protruding driver element).
It would have been obvious to replace the press-fit connection of Miwa Shoichi with the spline connection of Kawahara to provide a positive lock in the rotational direction between the rotation locking element and the spindle, thereby preventing the possibility of unintentional slipping between the rotation locking element and the spindle in the rotational direction.
Regarding claim 18, Kawahara does not disclose that a driver toothing of the rotation-locking element meshes with a driver toothing of the threaded spindle to form the form-fitting connection.
Kawahara teaches an actuation device (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-9) comprising a rotationally fixed connection between a rotation-locking element (34) and a threaded spindle (24), wherein driver toothing of the rotation-locking element meshes with a driver toothing of the threaded spindle to form the form-fitting connection (see ¶ 0089, FIG. 9).
It would have been obvious to replace the press-fit connection of Miwa Shoichi with the spline connection of Kawahara to provide a positive lock in the rotational direction between the rotation locking element and the spindle, thereby preventing the possibility of unintentional slipping between the rotation locking element and the spindle in the rotational direction.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miwa Shoichi (WO 2023/190459), as applied to claim 16, above, and further in view of Winkler et al. (US 2021/0018079).
Regarding claim 19, Miwa Shoichi does not disclose that the rotation-locking element is made of plastic, the plastic being glass fiber reinforced plastic.
Winkler teaches an actuation device (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-6) comprising a rotation-locking element (58, 70) that is made of plastic, the plastic being glass fiber reinforced plastic (see ¶¶ 0016, 0017).
It would have been obvious to form the rotation-locking element from glass fiber reinforced plastic (see ¶ 0017) to reduce weight, reduce costs and simplify manufacturing (see e.g. ¶¶ 0016, 0017).
Claims 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miwa Shoichi (WO 2023/190459), as applied to claim 16, above, and further in view of Peric et al. (US 2023/0003270).
Regarding claim 20, Miwa Shoichi does not disclose that the rotation locking element is made of a metal material using a cold forming process.
Peric teaches an actuation device (see Abstract, FIG. 1) comprising a rotation locking element (20) that is made of a metal material using a cold forming process (see ¶ 0016).
It would have been obvious to form the rotation locking element of a metal material using a cold forming process to utilize the well-known advantages of cold formed metal such as increased strength and hardness, improved surface finish, improved tolerances, and suitability for high volume production.
Regarding claim 22, Miwa Shoichi does not disclose that the threaded spindle is manufactured by a cold forming process.
Peric teaches an actuation device (see Abstract, FIG. 1) comprising a threaded spindle (11) that is made of a metal material using a cold forming process (see ¶ 0016).
It would have been obvious to form the threaded spindle using a cold forming process to utilize the well-known advantages of cold formed metal such as increased strength and hardness, improved surface finish, improved tolerances, and suitability for high volume production.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miwa Shoichi (WO 2023/190459), as applied to claim 16, above, and further in view of McIntyre et al. (US 12,202,453).
Regarding claim 21, Miwa Shoichi does not disclose that the rotation-locking element is skeletonized by means of recesses.
McIntyre teaches an actuation device (see Abstract, FIGS. 2, 3A-3C) comprising a rotation-locking element (120) is skeletonized by means of recesses (see FIG. 3A, element (120) comprises multiple recesses).
It would have been obvious to form recesses in the rotation locking element to a provide a lightweight rotation locking element (see e.g. col. 5, lines 15-20).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miwa Shoichi (WO 2023/190459), as applied to claim 16, above, and further in view of Yun (US 2020/0331446).
Regarding claim 24, Miwa Shoichi does not disclose that the threaded spindle or the rotation-locking element has an undercut, in which the rotation-locking element or the threaded spindle engages in order to axially fix the rotation-locking element to the threaded spindle.
Yun teaches an actuation device (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-6) comprising a threaded spindle (20) and a rotation-locking element (54), wherein the spindle has an undercut (21), in which the rotation-locking element engages in order to axially fix the rotation-locking element to the threaded spindle (see FIG. 5).
It would have been obvious to combine the undercut of Yun with the spindle and rotation-locking element to securely attach the rotation-locking element to the spindle in an axial direction.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miwa Shoichi (WO 2023/190459), as applied to claim 16, above, and further in view of Boehm et al. (US 2020/0340563).
Regarding claim 29, Miwa Shoichi does not disclose that a sliding shoe is arranged on the radial projection.
Boehm teaches an actuation device (see Abstract, FIGS. 3, 4) comprising a threaded spindle (84) and a rotation-locking element (92) having a radial projection (96), wherein a sliding shoe (112) is arranged on the radial projection (see FIG. 3, ¶ 0041).
It would have been obvious to combine the sliding shoes of Boehm with the radial projections of Miwa Shoichi to provide improved sliding properties (see e.g. Boehm, ¶ 0041).
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
September 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights