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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 07/23/2025 has been entered. No amendment has been made and claims 1-20 have been argued by the applicant. Therefore, claims 1-20 are now pending in the application.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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, 8,10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dawa Shinsuke (JP — 2006/097840 A, Examiner disclosed English machined translation in previous office action for rejection reference) and further in view of Petersen et al. (US - 4,266,638).
As per claim 1, Dawa discloses Brake Drum comprising:
the drum manufactured as a single part from an aluminium alloy (As shown in FIGS. 2 and 3, the brake drum 20 is a cast or forged product of a lightweight alloy such as an aluminum alloy, Best Mode, [0005], Fig: 2-3) and comprising;
a central axis (CL, Fig: 1-4);
a rear wall (33, Fig: 3) configured to be connected to a wheel and extending perpendicular to the central axis (Fig: 1);
a heat dissipating mass (41, Further, by extending a plurality of convex ribs 41... From the outer peripheral surface 24 of the cylindrical portion 21 through the outer surface 32 of the bottom plate 31 to the wheel mounting surface 33, the heat radiation area of the convex ribs 41, Best Mode, [0022], Fig: 1-5);
a circumferential wall (21, Fig: 3, 5) extending parallel to the central axis (Fig: 3- 5) and having an inner face (23, Fig: 3), an outer portion (24, 32, Fig: 3-5), a first segment (24, Fig: 3-5) and a second segment (Attached figure and Fig: 3-5), the inner face defining a braking surface (Fig: 1) configured to be contacted by one or more braking shoes of the drum brake (52, Fig: 1), the first segment having a first thickness and the second segment having a second thickness greater than the first thickness (Attached figure and Fig: 3-5).
Dawa discloses all the structural elements of the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose the heat dissipating mass being comprised in the outer portion and radially projecting from the second segment and not from the first segment, and
a transition area spaced apart from the heat dissipating mass and coupling the first segment of the circumferential wall with the rear wall.
Petersen discloses Composite Brake Drum comprising:
the heat dissipating mass (14, Fig: 2) being comprised in the outer portion and radially projecting from the second segment (Attached figure and Fig: 2) and not from the first segment (Attached figure and Fig: 2), and
a transition area spaced apart from the heat dissipating mass and coupling the first segment of the circumferential wall with the rear wall (Attached figure and Fig: 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Brake Drum of the Dawa to make the heat dissipating mass being comprised in the outer portion and radially projecting from the second segment and not from the first segment, and a transition area spaced apart from the heat dissipating mass and coupling the first segment of the circumferential wall with the rear wall as taught by Petersen in order to provide brake drums that are conveniently processed and of reduced cost and a brake drum that does not require unique axle flange attachment and can be conveniently removed from the shaft for servicing.
As per claim 8, Dawa discloses wherein the heat dissipating mass (41) includes a plurality of fins (41, Fig: 1, 4) that are arranged circumferentially about the central axis (Fig: 2), neighboring fins being spaced circumferentially apart from one another (41, Fig: 2, 4).
As per claim 10, Dawa discloses wherein the plurality of circumferentially arranged fins (41, Fig: 2, 4) are separated by channels configured for air circulations (the heat radiation area of the convex ribs 41. Can be increased. As a result, the heat dissipation of the brake drum 20 can be enhanced. Moreover, the rigidity of both the cylindrical portion 21 and the bottom plate 31 can be further enhanced by the plurality of convex ribs 41... Against thermal stress due to frictional heat. Thus, the thermal distortion of the brake drum 20 can be further suppressed against the frictional heat generated by the friction between the sliding contact surface 23 and the brake lining 52. For this reason, since distortion of the brake drum 20 can be further suppressed, a perfect circle of the sliding contact surface 23 can be sufficiently secured, Best Mode, [0022], Fig: 1-5).
As per claim 13, Dawa discloses wherein the channels for air circulation (between two 41, Fig: 2, 4) extend radially between the vertical walls and axially between the horizontal walls of the plurality of fins (Fig: 2, 4).
Claim(s) 2-7, 9, 11-12, 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dawa Shinsuke (JP — 2006/097840 A, Examiner disclosed English machined translation for rejection reference).
As per claim 2, Dawa discloses wherein the inner face (23) is parallel to the central axis (CL) and extends axially from a first point located at an intersection of the transition area and the first segment of the circumferential wall (21, Fig: 3-5), the heat dissipating mass (41) including a wall extending from a second point located at an intersection of the wall with the first segment (Fig: 3-4), the first point being arranged in a first imaginary plane and the second point being arranged in a second imaginary plane, each of the first and second imaginary planes being perpendicular to the central axis and spaced axially apart by at least 5 millimeters.
Dawa discloses all the structural elements of the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose each of the first and second imaginary planes being spaced axially apart by at least 5 millimeters.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the each of the first and second imaginary planes being spaced axially apart by at least 5 millimeters, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP — 2144.05, Ill, C.).
As per claims 3 and 4, Dawa discloses all the structural elements of the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the circumferential wall has in the first segment a mean thickness of at least 3 millimeters.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the circumferential wall has in the first segment a mean thickness of at least 3 millimeters, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP — 2144.05, Ill, C.).
As per claims 5 and 6, Dawa discloses all the structural elements of the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the circumferential wall has in the second segment a mean thickness of at least 8 millimeters.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the circumferential wall has in the second segment a mean thickness of at least 8 millimeters, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP — 2144.05, Ill, C).
As per claim 7, Dawa discloses wherein the wall of the heat dissipating mass (41) is a vertical wall extending from the first segment perpendicular to the central axis, the vertical wall being arranged in the second imaginary plane (Attached figure and Fig: 3).
Claim 9 recites all the limitations recited in claim 8, and is therefore, rejects under the same rationale.
As per claim 11, Dawa discloses wherein each of the plurality of fins (41) has a vertical wall (43, Fig: 3-5) and a horizontal wall (Attached figure and Fig: 3-5), the vertical wall being arranged in the second imaginary plane and the horizontal wall extending from the vertical wall in a manner parallel to the central axis (Attached figure and Fig: 3-5).
As per claim 12, Dawa discloses wherein the horizontal wall has a triangular shape (Attached figure and Fig: 3-5), with a thickness of each of the fins decreasing towards the vertical wall (Attached figure and Fig: 3-5).
As per claim 14, Dawa discloses wherein the rear wall (33, Fig: 1-5) has an outer face connectable to the wheel (Fig: 1) and is arranged in a third imaginary plane perpendicular to the central axis (Fig: 1).
Dawa discloses all the structural elements of the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose the second imaginary plane being separated axially from the third imaginary plane by a distance of at least 27 millimeters.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the second imaginary plane being separated axially from the third imaginary plane by a distance of at least 27 millimeters, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill y in the art (MPEP — 2144.05, III, C).
PNG
media_image1.png
746
484
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
837
800
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As per claim 20, Dawa discloses wherein the circumferential wall has the rear wall (33, Fig: 1-5) has an outer face connectable to the wheel and is arranged in a third imaginary plane perpendicular to the central axis (CL, Fig: 1-5).
Dawa discloses all the structural elements of the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose in the second segment a mean thickness of at least 8 millimeters and the second imaginary plane being axially separated from the third imaginary plane by a distance of at least 27 millimeters.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make in the second segment a mean thickness of at least 8 millimeters and the second imaginary plane being separated from the third imaginary plane by a distance of at least 27 millimeters, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP - 2144.05, Ill, C).
As per claims 15 and 16, Dawa discloses the brake drum 20 is a cast or forged product of a lightweight alloy such as an aluminum alloy (Best Mode, [0005], Fig: 2-3) but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the aluminium alloy is a hypereutectic aluminium - silicon alloy having a silicon content of 13 to 21% by weight and a maximum copper content of 0.3% by weight (Claim 15) and wherein the hypereutectic aluminium-silicon alloy has 0.2- 0.7% by weight of magnesium, a maximum 0.001% by weight of strontium, a maximum 0.2% by weight of iron and 0.06-0.1% by weight of titanium (Claim 16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange the aluminium alloy is a hypereutectic aluminium-silicon alloy having a silicon content of 13 to 21% by weight and a maximum copper content of 0.3% by weight (Claim 15) and wherein the hypereutectic aluminium-silicon alloy has 0.2-0.7% by weight of magnesium, a maximum 0.001% by weight of strontium, a maximum 0.2% by weight of iron and 0.06-0.1% by weight of titanium (Claim 16), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (MPEP — 2144.0, Ill. A).
As per claims 17, 18 and 19, Dawa discloses the brake drum 20 is a cast or forged product of a lightweight alloy such as an aluminum alloy (Best Mode, [0005], Fig: 2-3) but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the hypereutectic aluminium-silicon alloy has silicon particles with a primary silicon particle size of 30 to 100 um (Claim 17), wherein the hypereutectic aluminium-silicon alloy has silicon particles with a primary silicon particle size of 30 to 50 um (Claim 18) and wherein the hypereutectic aluminium -silicon alloy has silicon particles with a primary silicon particle size of no greater than 50 um (Claim 19).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange the hypereutectic aluminium-silicon alloy has silicon particles with a primary silicon particle size of 30 to 100 um (Claim 17), wherein the hypereutectic aluminium-silicon alloy has silicon particles with a primary silicon particle size of 30 to 50 um (Claim 18) and wherein the hypereutectic aluminium-silicon alloy has silicon particles with a primary silicon particle size of no greater than 50 um, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (MPEP — 2144.0, Ill. A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In page 5-7, the applicant argued that “Shinsuke discloses a drum brake that includes a cylindrical member having a cylinder portion 21 and a bottom plate 31 provided at one end of the cylinder portion. An inner peripheral face 22 of the cylinder portion includes a sliding face 23 which a brake lining contacts. An outer peripheral face 24 of the cylinder portion 21 includes a plurality of elongated projecting ribs 41 in the axial direction of the drum. An outer face 32 of the bottom plate 31 includes a flat wheel mounting face 33 on which a wheel is mounted at the center. The plurality of elongated projecting ribs 41 extend from the outer peripheral face 24 of the cylinder portion 21 through the outer face of the bottom plate 31 to the wheel mounting face so that its extending end 42 extends to the wheel mounting face 33. Shinsuke is aimed at maintaining the sliding surface 108 inside the cylindrical portion 21 to be a “perfect circle”. To achieve this, Shinsuke requires the use of the plurality of elongated projecting ribs 41 to increase the bending rigidity of the bottom plate 31, which increases the bending rigidity of the entire brake drum. Shinsuke also teaches that by having the elongated ribs 41 extend from the outer peripheral surface 24 of the cylindrical portion 21 to the wheel mounting surface 33, heat dissipation of the brake drum is improved to inhibit thermal distortion of the brake drum to maintain the shape of the slidable contact surface 108 as a perfect circle. Regarding claim 1, on page 4 of the Office Action the Office admits that Shinsuke fails to disclose: “the heat dissipating mass being comprised in the outer portion and radially projecting from the second segment and not from the first segment” and “a transition area spaced apart from the heat dissipating mass and coupling the first segment of the circumferential wall with the rear wall.”
In response to applicant’s arguments the examiner respectfully disagrees. First prior art (Dawa Shinsuke, JP – 2006/097840 A, Examiner discloses English machined translation in previous office action) discloses all the limitations that is drum manufacturing as a single part from aluminium alloy , central axis (CL), rear wall (33), heat dissipating mass (41), circumferential wall (21) and inner surface (23). Therefore, Dawa Shinsuke discloses all the limitations recited in claim1 except for the heat dissipating mass being comprised in the outer portion and radially projecting from the second segment and not from the first segment, and
a transition area spaced apart from the heat dissipating mass and coupling the first segment of the circumferential wall with the rear wall. Therefore, the examiner teaches Petersen et al. (US - 4,266,638). Petersen clearly show in in Fig: 2 that heat dissipating mass 14 with outer portion, radial projection from the second segment and transition area spaced apart from the heat dissipating mass (see attached figure).
Further, Dawa Shinsuke invention and Petersen invention are same as brake drum and so that brake drum obviously require perfect circle and even Dawa Shinsukedid not disclose “perfect circle” in specification.
Therefore, Dawa Shinsuke with teaching of Petersen discloses all the limitation recited in independent claim 1. Therefore, the rejection or independent claim 1 over Dawa Shinsukedid and further in view of Petersen is proper for the reason set forth above and maintained the rejection.
Claims 2-20 depend directly or indirectly on claim 1 and therefore rejection over Dawa Shinsukedid and further in view of Petersen and also obviousness are proper for the reason set forth above and maintained the rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAN M AUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5792. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, 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.
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.
/SAN M AUNG/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616