DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is in response to the claims filed on July 15, 2026.
The replacement figures filed June 2, 2026 have been approved.
The amendments to the specification filed June 2, 2026 have been approved.
Status of claims: claims 13 and 16-20 are withdrawn; claims 1-12, 14 and 15 are hereby examined below.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 .
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 10-12 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.
Claim 10 – the recitation of “wherein the first gear is in meshed engagement with the second gear” is 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. More specifically, since element 168 constitutes the first gear and element 304 reads on the second gear, the specification fails to point out a meshed engagement between elements 168 and 304.
Claim 12 – since claim 11 recites “the first gear is a worm gear” and claim 12 depends off of claim 11, the specification fails to point out “wherein the worm gear is positioned between the first gear and the electric motor,” as recited. In other words, the worm gear cannot be positioned between itself and the electric motor.
Further, claims dependent upon a rejected claim are rejected for at least being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20180080271 to Oster et al. (hereinafter “Oster”).
Oster discloses a powered actuator for a closure of a vehicle, comprising:
an electric motor 14 configured to rotate a motor shaft 28; (see FIG. 3);
an extensible member 22 configured to be coupled to one of a body or the closure of the vehicle for opening or closing the closure;
a gear mechanism 30,32 configured to apply a force to the extensible member for causing the extensible member to extend and retract in response to the rotation of the motor shaft; and
a brake mechanism 20 coupled to the motor shaft to apply a braking force on the motor shaft. (claim 1)
Oster further discloses wherein the brake mechanism is indirectly couped to the motor shaft. (see FIG. 3; note the worm hear 30 between the brake mechanism and motor shaft 28) (claim 2)
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 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oster, as applied to claim 2 above, in view of US 7634951 to Frieb-Preis et at. (hereinafter “Frieb-Preis”).
Oster discloses the brake mechanism is coupled to the motor shaft but fails to disclose wherein the brake mechanism is coupled to the motor shaft using a gear reduction mechanism.
Frieb-Preis teaches of a similar device with a brake mechanism 20’ is coupled to a shaft 4 using a gear reduction mechanism 15,16. (see FIG. FIG. 2 below)
[AltContent: textbox (F2)]
PNG
media_image1.png
258
504
media_image1.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 swap the brake mechanism of Oster with the one taught by Frieb-Preis with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow for greater control of output speed, increased torque, saving of energy costs and reducing noise and vibration of the powered actuator. (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)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oster, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Frieb-Preis.
Oster discloses the brake mechanism is coupled to the motor shaft but fails to disclose wherein the brake mechanism is coupled to the motor shaft using a gear reduction mechanism.
Frieb-Preis teaches of a similar device with a brake mechanism 20’ is coupled to a shaft 4 using a gear reduction mechanism 15,16. (see FIG. 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 swap the brake mechanism of Oster with the one taught by Frieb-Preis with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow for greater control of output speed, increased torque, saving of energy costs and reducing noise and vibration of the powered actuator. (claim 6)
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oster, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Frieb-Preis.
Oster fails to disclose 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.
Frieb-Preis teaches of a similar device with a brake mechanism 20’ is coupled to a shaft 4 using a gear reduction mechanism 15,16. (see FIG. 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 swap the brake mechanism of Oster with the one taught by Frieb-Preis with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow for greater control of output speed, increased torque, saving of energy costs and reducing noise and vibration of the powered actuator.
Furthermore, by combining the teachings of Frieb-Preis with Oster, Oster, as applied above, 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 FIG. 2 above of Frieb-Preis) (claim 9)
Claims 10-12 are, as best understood by the examiner, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oster, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Frieb-Preis.
Oster discloses wherein the gear mechanism comprises a first gear 30 but fails to disclose the brake mechanism comprises a brake shaft supporting a second gear, wherein the first gear is in meshed engagement with the second gear.
Frieb-Preis teaches of a gear mechanism comprising a first gear 15, 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.
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 swap the brake mechanism of Oster with the one taught by Frieb-Preis with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow for greater control of output speed, increased torque, saving of energy costs and reducing noise and vibration of the powered actuator. (claim 10)
Oster, as applied above, further discloses wherein the first gear a worm gear, the worm gear configured to rotate a worm wheel, the worm wheel configured to move the extensible member. (see FIG. 2 above and FIG. 3 of Oster) (claim 11)
Oster, as applied above, further discloses wherein the worm gear is positioned between the first gear and the electric motor. (Note: a portion of the worm gear is positioned between itself and the electric motor) (claim 12)
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0167545 to Oster et al. (hereinafter “Oster2”) in view of Oster.
Oster2 discloses a powered actuator for a closure of a vehicle, comprising:
an electric motor 14 configured to rotate a motor shaft; (see FIG. 1);
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;
a gear mechanism 16,18 configured to apply a force to the extensible member for causing the extensible member to extend and retract in response to the rotation of the motor shaft.
Oster2 fails to disclose a brake mechanism.
Oster teaches a brake mechanism 20 coupled to the motor shaft to apply a braking force on the motor shaft.
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 Oster2 with a brake mechanism, as taught by Oster, to further control the speed of the motor shaft as well as the speed of the closure of the vehicle. (claim 1)
Oster2, 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 motor shaft is adapted to rotate the lead screw. (see FIG. 1 of Oster2) (claim 14)
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oster in view of Frieb-Preis in further view of Kummer.
Oster discloses a powered actuator for a closure of a vehicle comprising:
an electric motor 14 configured to rotate a motor shaft 28; (see FIG. 3)
a worm 30 coupled to the motor shaft;
a gear 32 coupled to the worm;
an extensible member 22 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;
a brake mechanism 20 coupled to the motor shaft; and
Oster fails to disclose a gear reduction mechanism .
Frieb-Preis teaches of a similar device with:
a gear reduction mechanism 15,16 operatively coupling a shaft 4 to the brake mechanism 20’;
wherein the brake mechanism comprises a brake axis that is disposed parallel to an axis of shaft. (see FIG. 2)
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 swap the brake mechanism of Oster with the brake mechanism taught by Freib-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)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 15, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the prior rejection as been withdrawn and new grounds of rejection have been presented.
Conclusion
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 M - F 7:30 -4 PST.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 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 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.
/MARCUS MENEZES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights