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 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 (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 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) 1-3, 11-17, 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,944,150 to Hikari in view of DE 10 2017 101 525 A1 to Hartmann and in view of US 8,783,423 to Schrewe.
US 2019/0390725 A1 is relied upon as an English language translation.
Re-claims 1 and 2, Hikari teaches an elevator disc brake assembly, comprising: at least two separate operating disc brake units 12 mounted substantially sequentially on a periphery of a brake disc 11 of an elevator driving machinery (see column 2 line 2), the brake disc and a traction sheave 2 are rotated by a drive motor 1 of the driving machinery. However, Hikari fails to teach at least a first disc brake unit of the at least two disc brake units comprises at least two separate brake plates to be pressed against a first side of the brake disc; wherein the at least two separate brake plates are arranged to press against the brake at a different time; or wherein the at least two separate brake plates have a same size as each other.
Hartmann teaches a brake shoe for a single brake disc unit, the shoe comprises two separate brake plates (such plate 31 and plate 32, see figure 2) pressed against a brake disc (see paragraph 4), specifically against a first side of the brake disc; each brake shoe has two separate plates arranged to press against the brake disc at a different time (see paragraphs 14, 17 and 33, note the plates are decoupled from each and act upon the brake disc at different times, plate 31 acts first and plate 32 is utilized when a more intensive brake force is required). This provides a staggered braking force, or first level of braking force followed by a larger second level of braking force when necessary (see for instance paragraphs 6 and 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the disc brake units of Hikari with brake shoes having two separate plates of the type taught by Hartmann, thus providing a varied level of braking force responsive to the demand conditions.
Schrewe teaches disc brake assembly having a disc brake unit with at least two separate brake plates 18/20. The two separate brake plates are pressed against a brake disc at different times and have the same size as each other. This brake plate configuration could easily replace the brake plate configuration of Hartmann shown in figure 2, thus having separate plates that are simply aligned next to each other rather than concentric with each other. This would ease manufacturing, as the aligned plate configuration is simpler in design. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when having utilized the brake plate arrangement of Hartmann in Hikari to have further formed the two separate brake plates with the same size as taught by Schrewe, as this would have provided an equal force distribution for each brake plate.
Re-claim 3, each of the brake plates taught by Hartmann as utilized in the disc brake assembly of Hikari would have been arranged in a sequential direction of the brake disc. Figure 2 of Hartmann shows the first plate 31 and the second plate 32 arranged in a sequential direction.
Re-claims 11 and 12, Hartmann further teaches the two separate brake plates, and thus all the brake plates having a different thickness. The varied thickness may provide for different actuation times as well as different braking energies (see paragraph 35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teachings of Hartmann regarding the brake plate thickness when having modified the disc brake units of Hikari, thus providing a staggered braking operation.
Re-claim 13, Hikari teaches the disc brake units of the assembly are actuated using an electromagnet arrangement 34, see figure 13.
Re-claim 14, an electromagnet arrangement 34 of the brake disc units comprise a separate coil for each brake plate for each brake plate.
Re-claim 15, adjuster elements 25 and interconnection of the pads with bolt 59 allows for adjustment of the plates.
Re-claim 16, adjusting element (see figure 8) adjusts all the brake plates separately. This allows small adjustments of the caliper and thus all brake plates. In addition, elements 25 allow for adjustment.
Re-claim 17, Hikari as modified by Hartmann, thus having the separate brake plates, results in each of the two brake plates arranged sequentially in a direction of rotation of the brake disc.
Re-claim 21, each of the two disc brake units of Hikari as modified by Hartmann would have been provided with the brake shoe having two separate brake plates pressed against the first side of the brake disc, and as further taught by Hartmann, the two separate brake plates include a first brake plate 31 and a second brake plate 32 have different thicknesses (see paragraph 35 and figure 2).
Re-claim 22, Hikari as modified by Hartmann would have provided brake plates that are capable of being adjusted separately. The adjuster mechanism of Hikari is capable of being applied to each brake plate. Hartmann additionally contemplates the adjustment position of the brake plates, see paragraph and individual loading for each brake plate.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hikari in view of Hartmann and Schrewe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 00-20320 A1 to Hakala et al.
Re-claims 5-7, Hikari as modified by Hartmann and Schrewe fail to teach a state indicator assembly to measure an instantaneous position of each brake plate in relation to the brake disc, the state indicator comprising a proximity sensor and antenna placed offset from the brake plate.
Hakala et al. teach brake disc unit with a state indicator 8 that measures displacement (i.e. proximity) of the brake plate relative to the brake disc. The state indicator has an antenna (i.e. element 8) offset from the brake plate 17. This provides real time data to the control system, and is applicable to each brake plate as needed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the each plate of the at least two brake disc units of Hikari as modified by Hartmann with a state indicator of the type taught by Hakala et al., so as to provide real time state of wear monitoring for each brake plate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 11-17, 21 and 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas Williams whose telephone number is 571-272-7128. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday from 6:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert 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.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-6584.
TJW
January 10, 2026
/THOMAS J WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616