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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR 10-2023-0176604, filed on 12/07/2023.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 6 and 11-18 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 6 recites the limitation “wherein the second brakes are lightweight rather than the first brakes”. The use of the phrase “lightweight” is a subjective term. There is no objective standard as to what is considered lightweight by the applicant and thus the claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as “wherein the second brakes are lighter than the first brakes”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein the second brakes are lightweight rather than the first brakes” in lines 11-12. The use of the phrase “lightweight” is a subjective term. There is no objective standard as to what is considered lightweight by the applicant and thus the claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as “wherein the second brakes are lighter than the first brakes”.
Claims 12-18, which are dependent on claim 11 and further limit the system, inherit the same limitation and interpretation based on their dependence on claim 11. Thus, they are likewise indefinite.
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)(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.
(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 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Poltorak (US 20190276140).
Regarding claim 1, Poltorak teaches
An unmanned aerial vehicle comprising (Figure 2B, hover-capable flying machine ("HCFM") 100; Claim 6, the flying machine is Unmanned-Aircraft Vehicle System (UAVS)):
a body (Figure 2B, body 110; Paragraph 0079, The HCFM 100 includes main rotor assemblies 105, a body 110, and at least one power bank);
propeller portions connected to an edge of the body (Figure 2B, rotor assemblies 105; Paragraph 0079, The HCFM 100 includes main rotor assemblies 105, a body 110, and at least one power bank);
and a manipulator (Figure 2A, articulated arm 120; Paragraph 0081, The HCFM 100 also includes an articulated arm 120)
connected to a bottom surface of the body (Figure 2A, see body 110 and articulated arm 120),
wherein the manipulator comprises:
a first link connected to the bottom surface of the body (Figure 2B, intermediate member 122; Paragraph 0081, the articulated arm 120 is attached to a platform 128 with a joint 121 and includes intermediate members 122 and 123);
a first joint connected between the first link and the body (Figure 2B, joint 121; Paragraph 0081, the articulated arm 120 is attached to a platform 128 with a joint 121 and includes intermediate members 122 and 123);
a second link connected to the first link (Figure 2B, intermediate member 123; Paragraph 0081, the articulated arm 120 is attached to a platform 128 with a joint 121 and includes intermediate members 122 and 123);
and a second joint provided between the second link and the first link (Figure 2B, joint 125; Paragraph 0081, the articulated arm 120 is attached to a platform 128 with a joint 121 and includes intermediate members 122 and 123, an end member (a.k.a. “end effector”) 124, and joints 125 and 126 that allow articulation),
wherein at least one of the first joint or the second joint comprises brakes (Paragraph 0081, The arm and any of its joints and/or other components may be operated or moved using, for example, electrical and/or hydraulic activation under control of a controller (e.g., the FCS of the HCFM 100 or another controller) and/or a pilot; It is implied that these electrical or hydraulic activations are capable of likewise braking the joints).
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the teachings for claim 1, Poltorak further teaches
wherein the manipulator further comprises a holder connected to the second link (Figure 2B, end member 124; Paragraph 0081, the articulated arm 120 is attached to a platform 128 with a joint 121 and includes intermediate members 122 and 123, an end member (a.k.a. “end effector”) 124, and joints 125 and 126 that allow articulation).
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poltorak (US 20190276140).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Poltorak teaches
An unmanned aerial vehicle comprising (Figure 2B, hover-capable flying machine ("HCFM") 100; Claim 6, the flying machine is Unmanned-Aircraft Vehicle System (UAVS)):
a body (Figure 2B, body 110; Paragraph 0079, The HCFM 100 includes main rotor assemblies 105, a body 110, and at least one power bank);
propeller portions connected to an edge of the body (Figure 2B, rotor assemblies 105; Paragraph 0079, The HCFM 100 includes main rotor assemblies 105, a body 110, and at least one power bank);
and a manipulator (Figure 2A, articulated arm 120; Paragraph 0081, The HCFM 100 also includes an articulated arm 120)
connected to a bottom surface of the body (Figure 2A, see body 110 and articulated arm 120),
wherein the manipulator comprises:
a first link connected to the bottom surface of the body (Figure 2B, intermediate member 122; Paragraph 0081, the articulated arm 120 is attached to a platform 128 with a joint 121 and includes intermediate members 122 and 123);
a first joint connected between the first link and the body and provided with first brakes configured to stop rotation of the first link (Figure 2B, joint 121; Paragraph 0081, the articulated arm 120 is attached to a platform 128 with a joint 121 and includes intermediate members 122 and 123; Paragraph 0081, The arm and any of its joints and/or other components may be operated or moved using, for example, electrical and/or hydraulic activation under control of a controller (e.g., the FCS of the HCFM 100 or another controller) and/or a pilot; It is implied that these electrical or hydraulic activations are capable of likewise braking the joints);
a second link connected to the first link (Figure 2B, intermediate member 123; Paragraph 0081, the articulated arm 120 is attached to a platform 128 with a joint 121 and includes intermediate members 122 and 123);
and a second joint connected between the second link and the first link and provided with second brakes configured to stop rotation of the second link (Figure 2B, joint 125; Paragraph 0081, the articulated arm 120 is attached to a platform 128 with a joint 121 and includes intermediate members 122 and 123, an end member (a.k.a. “end effector”) 124, and joints 125 and 126 that allow articulation; Paragraph 0081, The arm and any of its joints and/or other components may be operated or moved using, for example, electrical and/or hydraulic activation under control of a controller (e.g., the FCS of the HCFM 100 or another controller) and/or a pilot; It is implied that these electrical or hydraulic activations are capable of likewise braking the joints).
Poltorak fails to fully teach wherein the second brakes are lightweight rather than the first brakes. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to try a finite number of potential solutions regarding the relationship between the weight of two joints, as taught by Poltorak. The potential relationships between the weight of two joints are:
First joint is lighter than the second joint
First joint is the same weight as the second joint
First joint is heavier than the second joint
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to practice the
limitations of this claim with a reasonable expectation of success by pursuing these finite number
of identified, predictable potential solutions to the teachings of Poltorak. For further
information regarding this rationale, see MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 12-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poltorak (US 20190276140) in view of Holmner et al. (US 20210387335), hereinafter Holmner.
Regarding claim 2, Poltorak teaches fully on claim 1, on which claim 2 is dependent, as seen above in section “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102”.
Poltorak fails to fully teach wherein the first joint comprises: a first bottom support; a first shaft through which the first link is connected to the first bottom support; a first rotary plate connected to the first link and provided on the first shaft; and first brakes provided at both sides of the first rotary plate, respectively. While Poltorak teaches the existence of a joint, it does not describe details of said joint as recited in the claim.
However, Holmner teaches
wherein the first joint comprises:
a first bottom support (Figure 3, second link member 18b and bearings 30; Paragraph 0043, the joint is exemplified as the third joint 20c in which the third link member 18c is rotationally coupled to the second link member 18b via bearings 30 for rotation about a rotational axis 32);
a first shaft through which the first link is connected to the first bottom support (Figure 3, third link member 18c; Paragraph 0043, the joint is exemplified as the third joint 20c in which the third link member 18c is rotationally coupled to the second link member 18b via bearings 30 for rotation about a rotational axis 32);
a first rotary plate connected to the first link and provided on the first shaft (Figure 3, hub 46; Paragraph 0046, The brake disk 44 is connected to the third link member 18c via a hub 46);
and first brakes provided at both sides of the first rotary plate, respectively (Figure 3, brake device 40; Paragraph 0046, The brake device 40 of this example comprises an electromagnetic member 42 fixedly connected to the second link member 18b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt a joint with a described structure as taught by Holmner to the joint of Poltorak. The joint structure as taught by Holmner is a known design in the same art as Poltorak and Poltorak teaches a joint and what the joint is capable of but does not specify any specific structure. Thus, it would have been obvious to apply a joint design similar to the one taught by Holmner to the joints of Poltorak. For further information regarding this rationale, see MPEP 2143(I)(D).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine these systems and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Furthermore, each element in the combined context would perform the same function they did separately.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Holmner to Poltorak because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (article manipulators), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3, Poltorak in view of Holmner teaches fully for claim 2 as seen above.
Poltorak fails to fully teach wherein each of the first brakes comprises: a first pad provided adjacent to the first rotary plate; and a solenoid brake provided between the first pad and the first bottom support to allow the first pad to be in close contact with the first rotary plate.
However, Holmner further teaches
wherein each of the first brakes comprises:
a first pad provided adjacent to the first rotary plate (Figure 3, brake disk 44; Paragraph 0046, The brake device 40 further comprises an annular rotatable frictional brake disk 44);
and a solenoid brake provided between the first pad and the first bottom support to allow the first pad to be in close contact with the first rotary plate (Figure 3, electromagnetic member 42, elastic elements 50, and armature plate 48; Paragraph 0047, When applying current to the coil of the electromagnetic member 42, a magnetic field is generated which attracts the armature plate 48 towards the electromagnetic member 42 against the compression of the elastic elements 50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt a brake with a described structure as taught by Holmner to the joint of Poltorak. The brake structure as taught by Holmner is a known design in the same art as Poltorak and Poltorak teaches a joint that is capable of mechanical and/or electrical control means and thus could use a brake as a means of mechanical actuation. Thus, it would have been obvious to apply a brake design similar to the one taught by Holmner to the joints of Poltorak for mechanical means of control. For further information regarding this rationale, see MPEP 2143(I)(D).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine these systems and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Furthermore, each element in the combined context would perform the same function they did separately.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Holmner to Poltorak because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (article manipulators), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5, Poltorak in view of Holmner teaches fully for claim 2 as seen above.
Poltorak fails to fully teach wherein the second joint comprises: a second bottom support; a second shaft through which the second link is connected to the second bottom support; a second rotary plate connected to the second link and provided on the second shaft; and second brakes provided at both sides of the second rotary plate, respectively. While Poltorak teaches the existence of a joint, it does not describe details of said joint as recited in the claim.
However, Holmner teaches
wherein the second joint comprises:
a second bottom support (Figure 3, second link member 18b and bearings 30; Paragraph 0043, the joint is exemplified as the third joint 20c in which the third link member 18c is rotationally coupled to the second link member 18b via bearings 30 for rotation about a rotational axis 32);
a second shaft through which the second link is connected to the second bottom support (Figure 3, third link member 18c; Paragraph 0043, the joint is exemplified as the third joint 20c in which the third link member 18c is rotationally coupled to the second link member 18b via bearings 30 for rotation about a rotational axis 32);
a second rotary plate connected to the second link and provided on the second shaft (Figure 3, hub 46; Paragraph 0046, The brake disk 44 is connected to the third link member 18c via a hub 46);
and second brakes provided at both sides of the second rotary plate, respectively (Figure 3, brake device 40; Paragraph 0046, The brake device 40 of this example comprises an electromagnetic member 42 fixedly connected to the second link member 18b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt a joint with a described structure as taught by Holmner to the joint of Poltorak. The joint structure as taught by Holmner is a known design in the same art as Poltorak and Poltorak teaches a joint and what the joint is capable of but does not specify any specific structure. Thus, it would have been obvious to apply a joint design similar to the one taught by Holmner to the joints of Poltorak. For further information regarding this rationale, see MPEP 2143(I)(D).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine these systems and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Furthermore, each element in the combined context would perform the same function they did separately.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Holmner to Poltorak because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (article manipulators), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Poltorak in view of Holmner teaches fully for claim 5 as seen above.
Poltorak fails to fully teach wherein the second brakes are lightweight rather than the first brakes. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to try a finite number of potential solutions regarding the relationship between the weight of two joints, as taught by Poltorak. The potential relationships between the weight of two joints are:
First joint is lighter than the second joint
First joint is the same weight as the second joint
First joint is heavier than the second joint
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to practice the
limitations of this claim with a reasonable expectation of success by pursuing these finite number
of identified, predictable potential solutions to the teachings of Poltorak. For further
information regarding this rationale, see MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Poltorak teaches on claim 11 as seen above.
Poltorak fails to fully teach wherein the first joint further comprises: a first bottom support in which the first brakes are accommodated; a first shaft connecting the first link to the first bottom support; and a first rotary plate connected to the first link and provided on the first shaft. While Poltorak teaches the existence of a joint, it does not describe details of said joint as recited in the claim.
However, Holmner teaches
wherein the first joint further comprises:
a first bottom support in which the first brakes are accommodated (Figure 3, second link member 18b and bearings 30; Paragraph 0043, the joint is exemplified as the third joint 20c in which the third link member 18c is rotationally coupled to the second link member 18b via bearings 30 for rotation about a rotational axis 32);
a first shaft connecting the first link to the first bottom support (Figure 3, third link member 18c; Paragraph 0043, the joint is exemplified as the third joint 20c in which the third link member 18c is rotationally coupled to the second link member 18b via bearings 30 for rotation about a rotational axis 32);
and a first rotary plate connected to the first link and provided on the first shaft (Figure 3, hub 46; Paragraph 0046, The brake disk 44 is connected to the third link member 18c via a hub 46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt a joint with a described structure as taught by Holmner to the joint of Poltorak. The joint structure as taught by Holmner is a known design in the same art as Poltorak and Poltorak teaches a joint and what the joint is capable of but does not specify any specific structure. Thus, it would have been obvious to apply a joint design similar to the one taught by Holmner to the joints of Poltorak. For further information regarding this rationale, see MPEP 2143(I)(D).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine these systems and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Furthermore, each element in the combined context would perform the same function they did separately.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Holmner to Poltorak because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (article manipulators), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 13, Poltorak in view of Holmner teaches fully for claim 12 as seen above.
Poltorak fails to fully teach wherein each of the first brakes comprises: a first pad provided adjacent to the first rotary plate; and a solenoid brake provided between the first pad and the first bottom support to allow the first pad to be in close contact with the first rotary plate.
However, Holmner further teaches
wherein each of the first brakes comprises:
a first pad provided adjacent to the first rotary plate (Figure 3, brake disk 44; Paragraph 0046, The brake device 40 further comprises an annular rotatable frictional brake disk 44);
and a solenoid brake provided between the first pad and the first bottom support to allow the first pad to be in close contact with the first rotary plate (Figure 3, electromagnetic member 42, elastic elements 50, and armature plate 48; Paragraph 0047, When applying current to the coil of the electromagnetic member 42, a magnetic field is generated which attracts the armature plate 48 towards the electromagnetic member 42 against the compression of the elastic elements 50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt a brake with a described structure as taught by Holmner to the joint of Poltorak. The brake structure as taught by Holmner is a known design in the same art as Poltorak and Poltorak teaches a joint that is capable of mechanical and/or electrical control means and thus could use a brake as a means of mechanical actuation. Thus, it would have been obvious to apply a brake design similar to the one taught by Holmner to the joints of Poltorak for mechanical means of control. For further information regarding this rationale, see MPEP 2143(I)(D).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine these systems and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Furthermore, each element in the combined context would perform the same function they did separately.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Holmner to Poltorak because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (article manipulators), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 15, Poltorak teaches for claim 11 as seen above.
Poltorak fails to fully teach wherein the second joint further comprises: a second bottom support in which the second brakes are accommodated; a second shaft connecting the second link to the second bottom support; and a second rotary plate connected to the second link and provided on the second shaft. While Poltorak teaches the existence of a joint, it does not describe details of said joint as recited in the claim
However, Holmner teaches
wherein the second joint further comprises:
a second bottom support in which the second brakes are accommodated (Figure 3, second link member 18b and bearings 30; Paragraph 0043, the joint is exemplified as the third joint 20c in which the third link member 18c is rotationally coupled to the second link member 18b via bearings 30 for rotation about a rotational axis 32);
a second shaft connecting the second link to the second bottom support (Figure 3, third link member 18c; Paragraph 0043, the joint is exemplified as the third joint 20c in which the third link member 18c is rotationally coupled to the second link member 18b via bearings 30 for rotation about a rotational axis 32);
and a second rotary plate connected to the second link and provided on the second shaft (Figure 3, hub 46; Paragraph 0046, The brake disk 44 is connected to the third link member 18c via a hub 46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt a joint with a described structure as taught by Holmner to the joint of Poltorak. The joint structure as taught by Holmner is a known design in the same art as Poltorak and Poltorak teaches a joint and what the joint is capable of but does not specify any specific structure. Thus, it would have been obvious to apply a joint design similar to the one taught by Holmner to the joints of Poltorak. For further information regarding this rationale, see MPEP 2143(I)(D).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine these systems and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Furthermore, each element in the combined context would perform the same function they did separately.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Holmner to Poltorak because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (article manipulators), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poltorak (US 20190276140) in view of Holmner (US 20210387335) and further in view of Kramer (US 814910).
Regarding claim 4, Poltorak in view of Holmner teaches fully for claim 3 as seen above.
Poltorak and Holmner fail to fully teach wherein the solenoid brake comprises: a tube; a coil wound around an outer circumferential surface of the tube; and a conductor rod provided in the tube and moved by magnetic fields induced by the coil. While Holmner teaches of an electromagnetic member for use with the brake, it does not teach the specifics of such an electromagnetic member.
However, Kramer teaches
wherein the solenoid brake comprises:
a tube (Figure 1, iron core 4; Column 1, lines 44-46, In the cavity of the coil 1 and of the shoe 3 an iron core 4 is displaceable axially);
a coil wound around an outer circumferential surface of the tube (Figure 1, coil 1; Column 1, lines 40-41, The solenoid attracting the brakes consists of a coil of wire 1);
and a conductor rod provided in the tube and moved by magnetic fields induced by the coil (Figure 1, see iron core 4; Column 2, lines 91-99, The brake acts in the following manner: When the driver desires to apply the brake, he switches the electromotors onto the brake-electromagnets. The motors then generate current, the strength of which corresponds to the velocity of rotation of the wheels, so that the core 4 is drawn into the corresponding position in the coil and the brake applied with a certain force).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply an electromagnetic brake similar in design to the one taught by Kramer to the electromagnetic member of Holmner. Kramer teaches an electromagnetic brake design and Holmner teaches the need for a brake device which is not limited to the specific brakes as taught (Holmner Paragraph 0045, Brake devices according to the present disclosure are however not limited to power-off brakes or to rotational brakes).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine these systems and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Furthermore, each element in the combined context would perform the same function they did separately.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Kramer to Holmner because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same application (brake systems), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 14, Poltorak in view of Holmner teaches fully for claim 13 as seen above.
Poltorak and Holmner fail to fully teach wherein the solenoid brake comprises: a tube; a coil wound around an outer circumferential surface of the tube; and a conductor rod provided in the tube and moved by magnetic fields induced by the coil. While Holmner teaches of an electromagnetic member for use with the brake, it does not teach the specifics of such an electromagnetic member.
However, Kramer teaches
wherein the solenoid brake comprises:
a tube (Figure 1, iron core 4; Column 1, lines 44-46, In the cavity of the coil 1 and of the shoe 3 an iron core 4 is displaceable axially);
a coil wound around an outer circumferential surface of the tube (Figure 1, coil 1; Column 1, lines 40-41, The solenoid attracting the brakes consists of a coil of wire 1);
and a conductor rod provided in the tube and moved by magnetic fields induced by the coil (Figure 1, see iron core 4; Column 2, lines 91-99, The brake acts in the following manner: When the driver desires to apply the brake, he switches the electromotors onto the brake-electromagnets. The motors then generate current, the strength of which corresponds to the velocity of rotation of the wheels, so that the core 4 is drawn into the corresponding position in the coil and the brake applied with a certain force).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply an electromagnetic brake similar in design to the one taught by Kramer to the electromagnetic member of Holmner. Kramer teaches an electromagnetic brake design and Holmner teaches the need for a brake device which is not limited to the specific brakes as taught (Holmner Paragraph 0045, Brake devices according to the present disclosure are however not limited to power-off brakes or to rotational brakes)..
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine these systems and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Furthermore, each element in the combined context would perform the same function they did separately.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Kramer to Holmner because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same application (brake systems), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 7, prior art fails to fully teach of a braking system which comprises a thermal expansion block and thermoelectric element whose purpose is to actively brake the system. While prior art teaches the use of a block for braking systems which can be actuated, the actuation means is not taught as a thermoelectric system nor is the block itself taught as thermally expandable. The closest prior art teaches away from using thermally expansive blocks as braking systems generate heat and thus may cause issues with thermal expansion as the means for braking. Thus, the claim distinguishes over the prior art.
Claims 8 and 9 are dependent on claim 7 and further limit the system and thus are likewise considered to distinguish over the prior art.
Claims 16-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 16, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, prior art fails to fully teach of a braking system which comprises a thermal expansion block and thermoelectric element whose purpose is to actively brake the system. While prior art teaches the use of a block for braking systems which can be actuated, the actuation means is not taught as a thermoelectric system nor is the block itself taught as thermally expandable. Typically, in the art, thermally expansive blocks are avoided as braking systems generate heat and thus may cause issues with thermal expansion as the means for braking. Thus, the claim distinguishes over the prior art.
Claims 17 and 18 are dependent on claim 16 and further limit the system and thus are likewise considered to distinguish over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure [See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited] because the prior art references contain subject matter that related to one or more the of the Applicant’s claim limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN THOMAS KOSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-7277. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:00 am - 4:30 pm EST).
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, Jacob S Scott can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
/J.T.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/JACOB S. SCOTT/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights