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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 5 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 4, two occasions of “locking-element” should be “a locking-element” and in claim 5 “locking-element” should be “a locking-element.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 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 1 recites “a pawl-head with a pawl-head-profiles defined at the corresponding operative front ends of said park pawls.” It is unclear if two pawl heads are intended to be included in the claim or only one. This claim language infers one pawl head with multiple profiles. Claim 1 also recites “an actuation rod” in line 12 and recites “said actuation rods” in line 16. It is unclear if one rod or multiple rods are intended to be included in the claim.
Claim 1 distinctly claims two pawls as well as a pawl head. The pawl head is not recited as being part of the pawl. However, the drawings illustrate the pawl as the entire pawl and the pawl head as the end of that pawl. The claims therefore in view of the specification are unclear as to whether they require a pawl head as a part of the recite pawl or pawls, or alternative a distinct member that is a pawl head not part of the pawls.
Claim 4 recites “one or more pitch distances.” If pitch distance is interpreted as a distance between teeth, it is unclear what a second pitch distance could mean. Does this mean two distances between the same two teeth or that pitch distances are different on the gear between different sets of teeth?
Claim 8 recites “each actuation rod” whereas claim 1 recites “an actuation rod.” It is unclear if there is a single rod claimed or multiple rods claimed.
Claim 10 recites “said park position actuation means” however there is no antecedent basis for this feature. This is interpreted as reciting “said actuation means.”
Claim 12 recites “said actuation rods” whereas claim 1 only recites “an actuation rod.” It is unclear if only one or more than one rod are included in this claim. There is not proper antecedent basis for multiple rods.
Claim 14 recites comprising the steps of “actuation rods armed by said actuation means towards respective park pawl.” It is unclear what step is being recited. In addition it is unclear if only one park pawl is recited since a single pawl is recited in line 6 and “said park pawls” is recited in line 7. In addition, the claim recites plural steps in line 2 whereas only a single step is recited, specifically in lines 3-4. In addition, claim 14 recites “a locking-element” followed by “said locking-elements” and therefore it is unclear if a single locking-element or multiple locking-elements are required by the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Enomoto (JP H09188232A).
Claim 14
Enomoto discloses a method of operating a park lock system(100), said method comprising the following steps:
actuating an actuation means (see FIG. 10, for example elements 16 and 14) on receiving a signal from a control or a manual switch when the vehicle is switched to a parking mode (see e.g., translation, page 2 describing the select lever shifted to parking range “P” moving plunger 122 and engaging 136 to gear 126; see also page 3, noting the same select lever 8 connected to rod 14; see also page 5 describing the selection of parking range “P” moving rod 14 and the plungers 26-1 and 26-2, engaging 40-1 and 40-2 against gear 42);
actuation rods ()26-1, 26-2 armed by said actuation means towards respective park;
said park pawls (32-1, 32-2) biased by respective actuation rods towards a park gear; and
a locking-element (40-1, 40-2) of either of said park pawls engaging with a tooth-space (42a) defined on said park gear,
the engagement of said locking-elements (40-1, 40-2) with said park gear (42) restricting the rotation of transmission and wheels of vehicle (see e.g., Abstract; if neither locking element engages, the friction slows down gear 42 however if gear 42 continues to rotate, one of the lock-elements will align with a tooth space and fully stop the vehicle if the friction alone does not stop the vehicle).
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(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martini et al. (DE 102016201228B4; hereinafter “Martini”) in view of Harada et al. (US 2024/0067142; hereinafter “Harada”).
Claim 1
Martini discloses a park lock system for vehicles, said park lock system comprising:
a first park pawl (4a) pivotally mounted on a support (20a), said first park pawl configured to move between a parked position and an unparked position;
a second park pawl (4b) pivotally mounted on a support (20b) adjacent to said first park pawl (4a), said second park pawl (4b) configured to move between a parked position and an unparked position (engaged or disengaged with tooth space 6b);
a park gear (2) provided in the transmission system of the vehicle, said park gear (2) configured to engage with either of said park pawl, to lock the movement of the vehicle when in a parked mode (see e.g., Abstract);
a pawl-head (respective ends of 4a and 4b at the end that is away from the pivot point) with a pawl-head-profiles (outer surface of those ends) defined at the corresponding operative front ends of said park pawls;
an actuation rod (shaft portion of 8) configured to push a wedging-element (end that includes 12a-12c; or only roller 12c) over said pawl-head-profiles of corresponding pawl-head, to push corresponding pawls towards their parked/actuated positions (see FIGS. 1 and 2).
Martini does not an actuation means, as this is disclosed in the specification. Martini discloses moving the actuation rod 8 to arm and/or unarm said actuation rods between the actuated and unactuated position, however the recited “actuation means” must be interpreted under 112(f) to cover the means that are disclosed in the specification. In this case, the means includes hydraulic pistons, pneumatic pistons, mechanical levers, mechanical switches, electro-mechanical switches, and solenoid. However, it is well known to provide these types of linear actuators to move rods in parking brakes. For example, Harada discloses a parking device with a rod (31) that is actuated by an actuator (21, 50, motor connected to 51) (also shown in FIGS. 3-5) includes a motor and mechanical linkage that arms and disarms the rod (31) which engages and disengages the parking pawl based on signals from a control unit (via 435) to switch the system between park and unparked modes (see e.g., paragraphs [0066]-[0071] describing operation of the device).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified Martini so that the rod (31) was actuated by a lever (21) and motor (motor connected to shaft 51) based on parking signals mechanically linked thereto since this is a simple substitution of one known generic actuation manner with another known specific actuation method to yield predictable results which in this case provides a provides actuation even during electrical failures that would otherwise prevent a parking brake from engaging or maintaining brake function, and/or low maintenance and repair costs.
As so modified, when put into park, either of said park pawls would be engaged with said park gear, to restrict the movement of the vehicle.
Claim 2
Martini as modified to include the actuator of Harada, discloses wherein said actuation means is selected from the group consisting of hydraulic pistons, pneumatic pistons, mechanical levers (Harada, 21), mechanical switches, electro-mechanical switches, and solenoid. For purposes of providing compact prosecution, it is noted that all of these general types of actuators are well known in the parking device field.
Claim 3
Martini as modified discloses wherein the orientations of said park pawls (4a, 4b) are mirrored to each other.
Alternatively, the parking pawls are parallel to one another, when in assembled condition (in the engaged position).
Claim 5
Martini as modified discloses wherein a plurality of tooth-spaces is defined on said park gear (see FIGS. 1 or 2 illustrating tooth spaces between teeth), each of said tooth-space is configured to receive locking-element of the closest park pawl.
Claim 7
Martini as modified discloses wherein a wedging-element (roller 12c or the entire end having 12a-12c) is assembled at the operative front end of said actuation rod (shaft portion 8).
Claim 9
Martini as modified discloses said system includes a return-spring (11a, 11b) provided on each of said park pawls to bias said park pawls towards their unactuated positions (see paragraph [0020] describing that the spring counteracts the engaging movement).
Claim 10
Martini as modified discloses wherein said [park position] actuation means is configured to be operated manually or upon receiving signals from a controller (see rejection of claim 1 describing signals).
Claim 12
Martini as modified discloses wherein a park sensor (14) is provided in proximity to said actuation rods to detect the position of said actuation rods.
Claim 13
Martini as modified discloses a vehicle including-a the park lock system as claimed in claim 1 (see Abstract and rejection of claim 1).
Claim 15
Martini as modified discloses wherein said wedging-element (Martini 12c or entire end with 12a-12c) is selected from the group consisting of a sliding element, a cone, and a roller-cage (the end slides and also includes a cage for a roller that rolls).
Claim 16
Martini as modified discloses wherein said wedging-element (Martini 12c or entire end with 12a-12c) is selected from the group consisting of a sliding element, a cone, and a roller-cage (the end slides and also includes a cage for a roller that rolls).
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9-11, 13, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto in view of Hyde et al. (US 9,238,452; hereinafter “Hyde”).
Claim 1
For purposes of this rejection, claim 1 is interpreted as including multiple pawl heads respectively as part of the first and second park pawls instead of “a pawl head.”
Enomoto discloses a park lock system for vehicles, said park lock system comprising:
a first park pawl (32-1) pivotally mounted on a support (half of 34 supporting 32-1), said first park pawl configured to move between a parked position and an unparked position;
a second park pawl (32-2) pivotally mounted on a support (half of 34 supporting 32-2) adjacent to said first park pawl (32-1), said second park pawl (32-2) configured to move between a parked position and an unparked position (see FIGS. 1 and 3);
a park gear (42) provided in the transmission system of the vehicle, said park gear (42) configured to engage with either of said park pawl, to lock the movement of the vehicle when in a parked mode (see);
a pawl-head (32-1 and 32-2) with a pawl-head-profiles (outer surfaces of 32-1 and 32-2) defined at the corresponding operative front ends of said park pawls (32-1 and 32-2);
an actuation rod (24-1, 24-2) configured to push a wedging-element (26-1, 26-2) over said pawl-head-profiles of corresponding pawl-head, to push corresponding pawls towards their parked/actuated positions (see Abstract); and
an actuation means (see FIG. 10, for example elements 16 and 14) configured to arm and/or unarm said actuation rods (24-1, 24-2) between the actuated and unactuated position, upon receiving command signal (from lever B) related to parked and unparked mode, when said park lock system is switched to a parked mode, either of said park pawls (32-1, 32-2) is engaged with said park gear (42), to restrict the movement of the vehicle.
The signal is not from a control unit. However, Hyde discloses a parking lock controlled by a control unit that receives a signal to move a linear actuator to engage and disengage a pawl (see e.g., column 3, lines 6-10; column 4, lines 36-51).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified Enomoto to have provided an electrically controlled parking brake linear actuator rather than a manual parking brake linear actuator in order to avoid the downfalls of manually-operated parking locks, which require detailed dynamic analysis, testing and development to ensure that the components are sufficiently durable.
If not otherwise described, reference is made to Enomoto below.
Claim 2
Enomoto as modified to include the actuator of Hyde, discloses wherein said actuation means is selected from the group consisting of hydraulic pistons, pneumatic pistons, mechanical levers (Hyde actuator plunger 6 akin to Enomoto plunger 14 act on lever Enomoto 16), mechanical switches, electro-mechanical switches, and solenoid (as an alternative the actuator of Hyde includes coils 34 and 36 to move the plunger 6).
Claim 3
Enomoto as modified discloses wherein the orientations of said park pawls (32-1, 32-2) are mirrored to each other.
Claim 4
Enomoto as modified discloses wherein the distance between locking-element of said first park pawl and locking-element of said second park pawl is not equal to one or more pitch distances of said park gear, when in assembled condition (see FIGS. 1 and 3 illustrating the two pawl engaging end at different distances from the pivot point such they engage at different times).
Claim 6
Enomoto as modified discloses wherein said first park pawl (32-1) is configured to prevent the rotation of park gear in first and second rotary direction by means of a form-closed locking; said second park pawl (32-2) is configured to prevent the rotation of said park gear in first and second rotary direction by means of a form-closed locking; and said first and second park pawls are positioned such that only one of said park pawls can engage with a tooth-space (42a) of said park gear (42) (see especially FIG. 1).
Claim 9
Enomoto as modified discloses said system includes a return-spring (38) provided on each of said park pawls to bias said park pawls towards their unactuated positions (see Enomoto, translation page 4).
Claim 10
Enomoto as modified to include the electric controls discloses wherein said park position actuation means is configured to be operated manually or upon receiving signals from a controller (see rejection of claim 1).
Claim 11
Enomoto as modified discloses wherein an override pin (18) and a solenoid (34 or 36) is provided to restrict and lock the travel of the actuation rod on receiving a command from the user.
Claim 13
Enomoto as modified discloses a vehicle including the park lock system as claimed in claim 1 (see Abstract and rejection of claim 1).
Claim 15
Enomoto as modified discloses wherein said wedging-element (26-1, 26-2) is selected from the group consisting of a sliding element (26-1, 26-2), a cone (26-1, 26-2), and a roller-cage.
Claim 16
Enomoto as modified discloses wherein said wedging-element (26-1, 26-2) is selected from the group consisting of a sliding element (26-1, 26-2), a cone (26-1, 26-2), and a roller-cage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 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.
With reference to claim 8, the prior art ode snot disclose or render obvious a park lock system comprising the combination of features including two park pawls “wherein: a first compression spring is provided on each actuation rod to maintain the actuation biased towards the respective pawl; a second compression spring configured to abut a plate at the operative rear end of said actuation rods; and a third compression spring configured to act as an arming spring is provided between said wedging-element and the operative front end of each of said actuation rods for maintaining an arming force on said pawl-head-profiles, to push said park pawls towards the park gear, when in parked mode.” The closest prior art to claim 8 is JP H09188232A which discloses two parking pawls and two rods with springs but does not also include the addition springs on the plate and at the wedging-element.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STACEY A FLUHART whose telephone number is (571)270-1851. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9AM-7PM.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DE 102022130980A1 includes two parking pawls engaged by a roller plunger.
DE 102018220248A1 discloses two parking pawls and a dual plunger to engage one or both of the plungers with springs therebetween. US 8,689,946 discloses two parking pawls engaged at different times to engage different tooth spacings.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
/STACEY A FLUHART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
