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) 1-8,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee 9,874,258 in view of Schwekutsch et al. 8,490,770.
Regarding claims 1,18 Lee shows in figures 1-4C:
A brake actuator 110,120,130,160 comprising: a case 300; a first motor 110 installed in the case; a transfer gear 120,130,140 rotatably installed in the case and connected to the first motor 110; a first parking member 150 rotating along with the transfer gear 120,130,140; a second motor or ‘drive unit 160’ disposed to be spaced apart from the first motor 110; a second parking member 161,163 connected to the second motor 160 and configured to limit the rotation of the first parking member 150 as the second parking member 161,163 is rotated in a first rotation direction.
Lacking in Lee is a specific showing of a ‘support member’, (as broadly claimed), disposed to face the second parking member and configured to limit a rotation range of the second parking member in a second rotation direction that is opposite to the first rotation direction and the parking drive unit 160 (described as a solenoid device in the specification) being a 'motor'.
However since the second parking member 161,163 must be limited in it’s rotation range in a releasing direction that is opposite to the first (engaging) rotation direction for the device to function as intended this limitation is considered to be inherently met by some structure in the device.
Nevertheless Schwekutsch et al. shows a such a structure at 3 and 17-19 in figs 1a,2a and 3a in a similarly structured brake actuator to that of Lee.
ALso Schwekutsch describes element 7 as an 'actuator' but states in col 4 lines 3-15: According to an exemplary embodiment, the actuator is designed in such a way that it generates an axial movement for displacing the locking element between the first and the second axial position. For axially moving the locking element, there is provided a spindle drive which can be driven by the actuator and which translates a rotational movement of the actuator into a linear movement of the locking element. The rotational movement is generated by an electric motor which can be controlled by an electronic control unit. However, it is understood that other types of actuators can also be used...
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have replaced the drive unit 160 of Lee with a second motor (and assembly), as taught by Schwekutsch, simply as the substitution of one well known mechanical actuating device for another. Such a substitution would likely result in more precise control over the movement of the latching device. Further one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a support member of some type would inherently exist in the brake arrangement of Lee disposed to face the second parking member and configured to limit a rotation range of the second parking member in a second rotation direction that is opposite to the first rotation direction for the device to function as intended.
Regarding claims 2,3 Lee, as modified shows that the first parking member 150 comprises: a first parking body 150 connected to a first output shaft of the first motor 110; and a plurality of inclined extension parts C,D (FIG 3A) extended from the first parking body and arranged along a circumferential surface of the first parking body.
Regarding claim 4 Lee, as modified shows that the second parking member 161,163 comprises: a second parking body 163 connected to a second output shaft 161 of the second motor and rotates in the first rotation direction or the second rotation direction; a trap member 163a extended from the second parking body and inserts between adjacent extension parts among the plurality of extension parts C,D as the second parking body is rotated in the first rotation direction.
However lacking in Lee is a specific showing of a return member connected to the second parking body 163 and configured to add rotatory power in the second rotation direction to the second parking body.
However as stated in col 9 of Lee: In this case, force, which is exerted on the upper end surface A of the parking rod 163, that is, in the releasing direction, is eliminated, and as a result, restoring force of the return spring of the parking drive unit 160 is exerted. As a result, even though the parking drive unit 160 is not separately operated, the parking rod 163 and the driving rod 161 are moved to the releasing positions as illustrated in FIG. 4C.
The reference to Schwekutsch et al. is relied upon to show such a return spring at 22. The function of this spring is described at the bottom of col 6:
For transferring the latching element 16 from the blocked position into the released position, there is provided a spring element 22. The spring element 22 is provided in the form of a leg spring which, by a first leg, is supported on the stationary component 3 and, by a second leg, on the latching element 16.
One having ordinary skill in the art would realize that the spring (described but not shown) in Lee would inherently function similar to the spring 22 in Schwekutsch et al.
Regarding claim 5 Lee, as modified (and as broadly claimed) shows the return member adds rotatory power in the second rotation direction to the second parking member when the second parking member comes into contact with the support member.
Regarding claim 6 Lee, as modified shows the return member is elastically deformable.
Regarding claim 7 Lee, as modified shows the return member 22 is (or could be obviously substituted for) a torsion spring.
Regarding claim 8, as broadly claimed, Lee as modified shows a ‘distribution member’ in the areas of 162 or 165.
Regarding claim 18 Lee is relied upon to show in figure 2 a brake apparatus comprising a caliper body that inherently has a piston unit functioning as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-17 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
8/23/26
Prosecution Insights