DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) have has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) and/or PT Rule 11.13(l) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “7” in figs. 1-2, “29” in fig. 2.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-14 and 19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, “wherein the elastomer sealing ring has a partially symmetrical elastomer sealing ring cross section to form a gap seal which is defined differently in multilateral directions resulting from the relative rotational and translational movement in cooperation with peripheral interfaces”. It is unclear what structure is implied by the gap seal that is “defined differently in multilateral directions”. In what manner is the gap seal “defined differently”? What are the multilateral directions? It is further unclear how the gap seal is “defined differently… resulting from the relative rotational and translational movement” as presently claimed. In other words, it is unclear how any relative motion changes how the gap seal is “defined”. Further, it is unclear how the gap seal experiences both relative rotation and translation. As best understood, the area around gap seal merely experiences relative rotation, because rotation of the spindle causes axial movement of the piston (see pgh. 0030 of the instant specification), so it is unclear how translation of the piston could affect anything about the sealing ring or gap seal thereof. Overall, it is unclear what this limitation means, and the specification does not describe what is meant by the gap seal being “defined differently in multilateral directions”. For example, it is unclear how it is “differently defined”, and what it is different with respect to, and it is further unclear what directions are “multilateral”. It is further unclear what structure is connoted by this limitation in general. For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as having different cross sections in the axial and radial directions such that it is only symmetrical in one direction.
Claim 19 recites, “wherein the at least one elastomer sealing ring has a partially symmetrical elastomer sealing ring cross section to form a gap seal which is defined differently in multilateral directions resulting from the relative rotational and translational movement in cooperation with peripheral interfaces”. It is unclear what structure is implied by the gap seal that is “defined differently in multilateral directions”. In what manner is the gap seal “defined differently”? What are the multilateral directions? It is further unclear how the gap seal is defined differently “resulting from the relative rotational and translational movement” as presently claimed. As best understood, the gap seal merely experiences relative rotation, because rotation of the spindle causes axial movement of the piston (see pgh. 0030 of the instant specification), so it is unclear how translation of the piston could affect anything about the sealing ring. Overall, it is unclear what this limitation means, and the specification does not describe what is meant by the gap seal being “defined differently in multilateral directions”. For example, it is unclear how it is “differently defined”, and what it is different with respect to, and it is further unclear what directions are “multilateral”. It is further unclear what structure is connoted by this limitation in general. For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as having different cross sections in the axial and radial directions such that it is only symmetrical in one direction.
Dependent claims not specifically rejected are rejected due to dependency on a rejected base claim, for failing to cure the deficiencies of the base claim.
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.
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.
Claims 1-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo et al. (U.S. 2010/0072811) in view of Budd (GB 1058660), (cited on IDS of 7/18/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Kondo discloses An elastomer sealing ring for a sealing system of an actuator-actuated motor vehicle disk brake (fig. 2) comprising:
an elastomer sealing ring (20) for a sealing system (including 20,21,22) fitted into a sealing receptacle (where 20 is mounted), wherein the elastomer sealing ring blocks at least one sealing gap (radially between housing 14 and shaft 17) substantially concentrically with respect to an actuating element (17) mounted in a brake housing (14) and movable relative thereto in a rotational and translational manner (the shaft 17 rotates while the piston 19 translates axially, therefore the devices as a whole is “movable… in a rotational and translational manner) located in an axially directed bore (inner wall of 14, including 14a, 14c) with an integral cavity (space of 14a at least) and laterally next to the cavity (to the right as shown),
wherein the elastomer sealing ring has a cross section to form a gap seal (the gap is sealed by the ring thus a “gap seal” is “formed”) in cooperation with peripheral interfaces (walls of cavity of 20 and outer surface of 17).
Kondo does not appear to disclose a partially symmetrical sealing ring cross section. In other words, the shape of the sealing ring is different. In the same field of endeavor for piston seals for an actuating cylinder of a disc brake, Budd teaches (fig. 2) a seal 1 that has a partially symmetrical elastomer sealing ring cross section (symmetric radially but asymmetric axially) to permit a gap seal (gap between 13 and 17) which is defined differently in multilateral directions (as best understood, see 112b above, the shape is different in the axial and radial directions) in cooperation with peripheral interfaces (26,20). 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 shape of the seal of Budd in the seal arrangement of Kondo to reduce wear caused on the seal due to piston motion under disc rotation, thereby preventing fluid or air getting past the seal (page 1 lines 50-60 at least).
Regarding claim 2, Kondo as modified teaches an elastomer sealing ring cross section is arranged symmetrically in relation to a first reference axis, which is directed radially with respect to an actuating axis (fig. 2 as shown, seal is symmetric about the vertical center line), and in that the elastomer sealing ring cross section is produced asymmetrically in relation to a second reference axis, which is directed parallel to the actuating axis (fig. 2 as shown, seal is asymmetric about a horizontal center line.
Regarding claim 3, Kondo as modified teaches a delimitation of the elastomer sealing ring cross section composed of a plurality of segment pieces is provided, and in that said delimiting segment pieces each composed of at least one of a plurality of rectilinear segments, of a plurality of arc segments, of a plurality of curved segments, and of a plurality of circular arc segments are provided (fig. 2 as shown, segments, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 14, at least one of which is rectilinear or arc or curved or circular).
Regarding claim 4, Kondo as modified teaches the elastomer sealing ring has, radially on the outside, a head sector (Budd, 4) with a statically stressed sealing area (stressed by interaction with mounting groove)
Regarding claim 5, Kondo as modified teaches the head sector of the elastomer sealing ring comprises at least one inclined surface (5).
Regarding claim 6, Kondo as modified teaches the head sector of the elastomer sealing ring has a plurality of roof surfaces (5) inclined in relation to one another (as shown).
Regarding claim 7, Kondo as modified teaches the head sector of the elastomer sealing ring has a plurality of pitched roof surfaces (5, as shown).
Regarding claim 8, Kondo as modified teaches the head sector of the elastomer sealing ring a cylindrically circumferential flat wall bearing surface (6) radially on the outside and peripherally.
Regarding claim 9, Kondo as modified teaches the elastomer sealing ring further comprises, radially on the inside, a foot sector (7) with a dynamically stressed sealing area (8 and 14).
Regarding claim 10, Kondo as modified teaches the elastomer sealing ring is shaped in the foot sector with a curvature (9, as shown).
Regarding claim 11, Kondo as modified teaches the curvature is at least one of: convex, concave, crowned, arcuate, and curved in the shape of a circular arc (concave as shown).
Regarding claim 12, Kondo as modified teaches the elastomer sealing ring cross section is D-shaped (roughly D shaped, as shown, with the flat “base” of the D pointing down in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Kondo as modified teaches a hydraulic internal pressure increase in the cavity because of an increased elastic deformation of the elastomer sealing ring brings about an adaptive sealing effect (see figs. 5 vs. 6, pressure from one side deforms the seal and changes pressure exerted by the seal on its surroundings), differently graduated relative to one other, via a differently adapted surface pressure (different pressure at 5/6 vs. 8 vs. 14. vs. 2 vs. 3) in on at least one of a head sector, a foot sector, and a back sector of the elastomer sealing ring1.
Regarding claim 19, Kondo discloses a motor vehicle disk brake with a sealing system (fig. 2) comprising
an actuating mechanism (19) in a brake housing (14) movable relative thereto in at least one of a rotational and translational manner (translational as shown);
an actuating element (17) is mounted in the brake housing movable relative thereto (rotationally) in an axially directed bore (inner wall of 14, including 14a, 14c) with an integral cavity (space of 14a at least)
a sealing system (including 20, 21, etc.) for the actuating mechanism with interfaces (surfaces of 14c, 17, etc.)
at least one elastomer sealing ring (20) for the sealing system (including 20,21,22) fitted into a sealing receptacle (where 20 is mounted), wherein the elastomer sealing ring blocks at least one sealing gap (radially between housing 14 and shaft 17) substantially concentrically with respect to the actuating element located in and laterally next to the cavity (to the right as shown),
wherein the at least one elastomer sealing ring has a cross section to form a gap seal (the gap is sealed by the ring thus a “gap seal” is “formed”) in cooperation with peripheral interfaces (walls of cavity of 20 and outer surface of 17).
Kondo does not appear to disclose a partially symmetrical sealing ring cross section. In other words, the shape of the sealing ring is different. In the same field of endeavor for piston seals for an actuating cylinder of a disc brake, Budd teaches (fig. 2) a seal 1 that has a partially symmetrical elastomer sealing ring cross section (symmetric radially but asymmetric axially) to permit a gap seal (gap between 13 and 17) which is defined differently in multilateral directions (as best understood, see 112b above, the shape is different in the axial and radial directions) in cooperation with peripheral interfaces (26,20). 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 shape of the seal of Budd in the seal arrangement of Kondo to reduce wear caused on the seal due to piston motion under disc rotation, thereby preventing fluid or air getting past the seal (page 1 lines 50-60 at least).
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo et al. (U.S. 2010/0072811) in view of Ohishi (U.S. 6347689).
Regarding claim 15, Kondo discloses (fig. 2) A sealing system for a motor vehicle disk brake comprising:
An elastomer sealing ring (20) fitted into a sealing receptacle (area where 20 is held), wherein the elastomer sealing ring blocks at least one sealing gap (radially between housing 14 and shaft 17) substantially concentrically with respect to an actuating element (17/19) mounted in a brake housing (14) and movable relative thereto in a rotational and translational manner (the shaft 17 rotates while the piston 19 translates axially, therefore the devices as a whole is “movable… in a rotational and translational manner) located in an axially directed bore (inner wall of 14, including 14a, 14c) wherein the elastomer sealing ring has elastic contact support between the elastomer sealing ring and the sealing receptacle (due to being installed in the sealing gap as shown) to seal against rotational movement of the actuating element relative to the brake housing (sealing occurs and shaft 17 rotates, thus
Kondo does not appear to disclose an elastomer sealing ring surface pressure in a head sector of the elastomer sealing ring is lower than an elastomer sealing ring surface pressure in a foot sector of the elastomer sealing ring. As best understood the foot of the seal (leading surface that contacts 17) will drag when encountering relative rotation while the head (trailing surface normally contacting 17) may lift off due to rotational torque, which may cause the head to have lower surface pressure than the foot, but it is unclear. To demonstrate this phenomenon, Ohishi teaches a sealing ring (26) having a surface pressure in a head sector (near 54) of the sealing ring is lower than in a foot sector (near 56) of the sealing ring (see fig. 10, surface 54 lifts off piston 24 when actuated to the right, while surface 56 is smashed into surfaces 44 and 42). In Kondo, the equivalent motion would be a relative rotation, which has a similar action to the sliding action in Ohishi. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have ensured that the head of the seal has a lower pressure than the foot (or in other words the foot has a higher surface pressure) in order to prevent fluids from traveling under the seal. If pressure at the leading edge (foot) is lower than at the trailing edge (head), then fluid may travel under the seal and escape.
Regarding claims 16-18, Kondo does not appear to disclose a defined, limited radial elastic compression. Ohishi teaches discloses a defined, limited radial elastic compression for the seal (26) as follows: S/Dn * 100 >= 5 % and <= 25 %.
It is noted that per the instant specification, “S” = Dn-Dhmax, or maybe as intended the absolute value thereof, since “Dn-Dhmax” is a negative number. The claimed formula of S/Dn * 100 or Dn-Dhmax/DN * 100 is equivalent to (|P-C|)/P * 100 in Ohishi, since “Dn” is equivalent to diameter P and Dhmax is equivalent to diameter C. These values are calculated or disclosed as follows:
P = 15.4 mm (col. 7 lines 51-52).
A= P + .1 mm (col. 7 lines 39-41). Therefore A = 15.5 mm
Groove depth = 1.819 mm (col. 5 lines 2-4), which can be expressed as (C – A)/2. Solving for C… C = A + (1.819/2) = 19.138 mm
Finally, (|P-C|)/P * 100 = 24.27 %, which is in the range of 5-25 %.
The limited compression is defined by the relative size of the groove and seal, and also corresponds to the diameter. 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 a specified elastic radial compression to prevent damage to the seal due to over-compression or stretching, while also allowing for adequate sealing properties, as no compression would result in virtually no sealing.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo et al. (U.S. 2010/0072811) in view of Budd (GB 1058660), (cited on IDS of 7/18/2025), and further in view of NPL Cite 1 (AP Racing, Servicing and Reconditioning of Brake Piston Seals).
Regarding claim 14, Kondo does not appear to disclose the elastomer sealing ring is impregnated with brake fluid. NPL Cite 1 teaches servicing/reconditioning brake calipers and piston seals, where piston seals are replaced when worn out, and replacement seals are soaked in brake fluid for 30 minutes prior to fitment, thus resulting in a sealing ring “impregnated with brake fluid” at least to some degree. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have soaked the sealing ring in brake fluid for 30 minutes prior to fitment, thus resulting in a sealing ring “impregnated with brake fluid” to ease the installation process, as a sealing ring impregnated with brake fluid will allow for parts to be installed easier than a dry sealing ring.
Response to Arguments
The amendments made to claim 15 have alleviated the previous 102 rejection. However, a new ground of rejection has been made, as appears above.
The arguments regarding the 103 rejection of Kondo in view of Budd (see page 12) have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
Applicant contends that Budd does not disclose a seal that seals against relative translational and rotational movement. First, this is not disclosed in the instant application, let alone claimed. What is claimed is the sealing ring blocks a sealing gap, such sealing gap is substantially concentric with respect to an actuating element, such actuating element is mounted in a brake housing, such actuating element (in general) is movable relative to the housing in a rotational and translational manner. Some components of the actuating element move in a rotational manner such as the spindle, while other components move in a translational manner such as the piston, but the location of the seal does not experience translational motion. Similarly, the spindle 17 of Kondo rotates and the piston 19 translates. Accordingly, Budd need not teach these features.
Applicant contends that there is no motivation for applying the sealing ring of Budd to the arrangement of Kondo, because they are placed in different locations and operate differently. First, Budd is at least deemed to be within the same field of endeavor as Kondo, since both Budd and Kondo are in the same environment of a sealing a component of a brake actuator for a disk brake. Second, the problem being solved by Budd is also pertinent to Kondo, since Budd is attempting to solve the problem of excess wear of the seal, in addition to relative movement causing air to get past the seal. Kondo would also be concerned with this problem, since air entering the system of Kondo would be equally detrimental. Budd solves this problem due to the special shape of the seal used, as opposed to a generic seal, so utilizing the shape of the seal of Budd would arguably improve the seal performance within Kondo as well.
Regarding claim 14, the amendment has alleviated the previous rejection, but a new ground of rejection has been made, as appears above.
Conclusion
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 DAVID MORRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3595. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:30 AM - 5:00 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.
/DAVID R MORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
1 Since the claim is an apparatus claim, it is noted that the functions need not literally happen, rather the structure merely needs to be capable of meeting the function without structural modifications.