DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is in response to the claims filed on January 28, 2026.
Status of claims: claims 13 and 16-20 are withdrawn; claims 1-12, 14 and 15 are hereby examined below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 7, 2024 was considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of the apparatus claims 1-15 in the reply filed January 28, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 16-20 drawn to the unelected method claims have been withdrawn.
Claim 13 is drawn exclusively to unelected Species I and II and therefore has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s election with traverse of Species VIII pertaining to FIGS. 28-34 in the reply filed on January 28, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that:
PNG
media_image1.png
150
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This is not found persuasive because the applicant has not explained what constitutes the “overlapping subject matter” and how and/or why such “overlapping subject matter” “should lead to examination of all species.” The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
The extensive text in FIGS. 20-27 must be removed and perhaps replaced with numerical identifiers supported by the specification.
FIGS. 31, 32 – shouldn’t the retractable extensible member 134 be labeled as “134’” as is the case in FIGS. 28 and 33. Note the lead screw is also labeled as 134 in FIGS. 31 and 32.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [00121] – Line 4 – shouldn’t “135b” be amended to “134b”
Paragraph [00116] – “gear reduction mechanism 300” is recited incorrectly and should be amended to “gear reduction mechanism 302”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 6 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 8 – shouldn’t “the motor drive shaft” be amended to “the drive shaft?”
Claim 3, line 2 – shouldn’t “a gear reduction mechanism” be amended to “the gear reduction mechanism” since “a gear reduction mechanism” is recited in claim 1?
Claim 6, line 2 – shouldn’t “a gear reduction mechanism” be amended to “the gear reduction mechanism” since “a gear reduction mechanism” is recited in claim 1?
Claim 11, line 2 – shouldn’t “the worm gear configured” be amended to “the worm gear is configured”
Claim 11, line 3 – shouldn’t “the worm gear configured” be amended to “the worm gear is configured”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-6 and 9-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0167545 to Oster et al. (hereinafter “Oster”) in view of US 7634951 to Frieb-Preis et at. (hereinafter “Frieb-Preis”).
Oster disclose a powered actuator for a closure of a vehicle, comprising:
an electric motor 14 configured to rotate a driven shaft (the worm 16 is attached to the driven shaft; see FIG. 1 below); and
an extensible member 20,26,28 configured to be coupled to one of a body or the closure of the vehicle for opening or closing the closure. (see FIG. 1 below)
[AltContent: textbox (F1)]
PNG
media_image2.png
430
524
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Oster fails to disclose a gear reduction mechanism and brake mechanism.
Frieb-Preis teaches of a similar device with:
a gear reduction mechanism 15,16 configured to apply a force to the extensible member for causing the extensible member to extend and retract in response to rotation of the driven shaft; and
a brake mechanism 20’ coupled to the motor drive shaft to apply a braking force on the driven shaft. (see FIG. FIG. 2 below)
[AltContent: textbox (F2)]
PNG
media_image3.png
258
504
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach a brake mechanism and gear reduction mechanism below the Oster electric motor and driven shaft, as taught by Frieb-Preis, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce the output speed of the motor while increasing output torque, allowing for greater control of output speed, saving of energy costs and reducing noise and vibration of the powered actuator. (claim 1)
Oster, as applied above, further discloses wherein the brake mechanism is indirectly coupled to the driven shaft. (Note the Frieb-Preis brake mechanism 20’ is indirectly coupled to the drive shaft 17’ via gears 15 and 16; see FIG. 2 above) (claim 2)
Oster, as applied above, further discloses wherein the brake mechanism is coupled to the driven shaft using a gear reduction mechanism 15,16. (see FIG. 2 above) (claim 3)
Oster, as applied above, further discloses wherein the gear reduction mechanism is selected from the group consisting of: a gear coupling 15,16, a toothed belt coupling, and a belt coupling. (see FIG. 2 above) (claim 4)
Oster, as applied above, further discloses wherein the gear reduction mechanism is configured to multiply a braking force of the brake mechanism applied to the driven shaft. (note the differing sizes of gears 15 and 16 above.) (claim 5)
Oster, as applied above, further discloses wherein the brake mechanism is coupled to the driven shaft using a gear reduction mechanism 15,16. (see FIG. 2 above) (claim 6)
Oster, as applied above, further discloses wherein the driven shaft is configured to extend along a driven shaft axis and the brake mechanism comprises a brake axis disposed parallel and adjacent to the driven shaft axis. (see the two figures above and note the combination of the two references disclose the recitation of claim 9.) (claim 9)
Oster, as applied above, further discloses wherein the driven shaft comprises a first gear 16, and the brake mechanism comprises a brake shaft 23 supporting a second gear 16, wherein the first gear is in meshed engagement with the second gear. (claim 10)
Oster, as applied above, further discloses wherein the driven shaft is configured to support a worm gear 16, the worm gear configured to rotate a worm wheel, the worm wheel configured to move the extensible member. (see FIG. 1 above) (claim 11)
Oster, as applied above, further discloses wherein the worm gear is positioned between the first gear and the electric motor. (see FIGS. 1 and 2 above) (claim 12)
Oster, as applied above, further discloses wherein the extensible member comprises linkage 28 coupled to a lead nut 26 moveable in response to rotation of a lead screw 20, the extensible member configured to move axially in response to rotation of the lead nut, and wherein the driven shaft is adapted to rotate the lead screw. (see Fig. 1 above) (claim 14)
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oster in view of Frieb-Preis, as applied to claim 6 above, in further view of US 11428037 to Kummer.
Oster, as applied above, fails to disclose wherein the brake mechanism comprises a magnetic brake.
Kummer teaches of a braking mechanism 82 having a magnetic brake. (hysteresis magnet 92,94; see columns 8 and 9 and FIGS. 4 and 10)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Oster brake mechanism with the hysteresis magnet taught in Kummer with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow for braking without relying on friction or mechanical contact; thus resulting in a brake mechanism with a longer lifespan, smoother operation, and superior torque repeatability compared to traditional brakes. (claim 7)
Oster, as applied above, further discloses wherein the magnetic brake is a hysteresis brake having a stationary component 92 and a rotatable component 94. (claim 8)
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oster in view of Frieb-Preis in view of US 11428037 to Kummer.
Oster discloses a powered actuator for a closure of a vehicle comprising:
an electric motor 14 configured to rotate a driven shaft;
a worm 16 coupled to the driven shaft;
a gear 18 coupled to the worm;
an extensible member 20,26,28 coupled to the gear, the extensible member configured to be coupled to one of a body or the closure of the vehicle for opening or closing the closure, wherein the extensible member is configured to extend and retract in response to rotation of the gear.
Oster fails to disclose a gear reduction mechanism and brake mechanism.
Frieb-Preis teaches of a similar device with:
a brake mechanism 20’ coupled to the driven shaft, the brake mechanism; and
a gear reduction mechanism 15,16 operatively coupling the driven shaft to the brake mechanism;
wherein the brake mechanism comprises a brake axis that is disposed parallel to an axis of the driven shaft. (see FIG. 2 above)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach a brake mechanism and gear reduction mechanism below the Oster electric motor and driven shaft, as taught by Frieb-Preis, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce the output speed of the motor while increasing output torque, allowing for greater control of output speed, saving of energy costs and reducing noise and vibration of the powered actuator.
Oster, as applied above, fails to disclose the brake mechanism having a hysteresis magnet.
Kummer teaches of a braking mechanism 82 having a hysteresis magnet 92,94. (see columns 8 and 9 and FIGS. 4 and 10)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Oster brake mechanism with the hysteresis magnet taught in Kummer with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow for braking without relying on friction or mechanical contact; thus resulting in a brake mechanism with a longer lifespan, smoother operation, and superior torque repeatability compared to traditional brakes. (claim 15)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS MENEZES whose telephone number is (571) 272-5225. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 7:30 -4 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Daniel Cahn can be reached on 571-270-5616. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. 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 questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Marcus Menezes/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634