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 .
Double Patenting
Applicant is advised that should claim 8 be found allowable, claim 5 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 14, 15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 14, 15 and 19, the term “the dynamic braking assembly” lacks antecedent basis, thereby rendering it unclear which braking assembly is being referenced.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 4,138,001) in view of Hodkinson (GB 2113326).
Regarding independent claim 1, Lee discloses a caliper assembly (see Abstract, FIG. 2) comprising: a first braking assembly (26) with an axial line of action (see FIG. 2); a second braking assembly (25) configured for park braking applications (see col. 7, lines 36-38) with an axial line of action offset from the axial line of action of the first brake assembly (see FIG. 2); and a load transfer device (28) for transferring a mechanical force from the second braking assembly to the first braking assembly (see col. 4, lines 37-39; FIG. 2).
Lee does not disclose that the first braking assembly is a hydraulic braking assembly configured for dynamic service braking applications.
Hodkinson teaches a caliper assembly (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-3) comprising a first braking assembly (28) configured as a hydraulic braking assembly configured for dynamic service braking applications (see page 1, lines 108-114) and a second braking assembly (32) configured for park braking applications (see page 1, lines 115-126) and a load transfer device (24).
It would have been obvious to configure the first braking assembly of Lee to operate as a hydraulically operated service brake to prevent cycling fatigue of the parking brake spring (e.g. if the piston (44) is operated hydraulically independently of the service brake, the springs (144, 146) are not unnecessarily compressed and expanded) and to improve responsiveness of the service brakes (e.g. service brakes operated by the spring are limited by how quickly fluid can be vented from the chamber (22) by operation of the springs).
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses a housing (16, 18, 20), wherein the first brake assembly, the second brake assembly and the load transfer device are housed in the housing (see FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses that the second braking assembly is hydraulic (see col. 4, lines 14-50; col. 7, lines 28-38).
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses that the second braking assembly is a SAHR brake assembly (see col. 4, lines 14-50; col. 7, lines 28-38).
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses that the second braking assembly is a static brake assembly (see col. 4, lines 14-50; col. 7, lines 28-38).
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses that the second braking assembly is a SAHR brake assembly (see col. 4, lines 14-50; col. 7, lines 28-38).
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses that the load transfer device is a mechanical linkage (see FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses that the load transfer device is a rocker arm (see FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Lee discloses a caliper assembly (see Abstract, FIG. 2) comprising: a first braking assembly (26) (see col. 1, line 67 to col. 2, line 1) having an axial line of action (see FIG. 2); a second braking assembly (24) that is a static braking assembly configured for park braking applications (see col. 7, lines 28-38) having an axial line of action that is offset from the axial line of action of the service braking assembly (see FIG. 2); and a linkage (28) connecting the service brake assembly and the static brake assembly (see FIG. 2).
Lee does not disclose that the first braking assembly is a hydraulic braking assembly configured for dynamic service braking applications.
Hodkinson teaches a caliper assembly (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-3) comprising a first braking assembly (28) configured as a hydraulic braking assembly configured for dynamic service braking applications (see page 1, lines 108-114) and a second braking assembly (32) configured for park braking applications (see page 1, lines 115-126) and a load transfer device (24).
It would have been obvious to configure the first braking assembly of Lee to operate as a hydraulically operated service brake to prevent cycling fatigue of the parking brake spring (e.g. if the piston (44) is operated hydraulically independently of the service brake, the springs (144, 146) are not unnecessarily compressed and expanded) and to improve responsiveness of the service brakes (e.g. service brakes operated by the spring are limited by how quickly fluid can be vented from the chamber (22) by operation of the springs).
Regarding claim 14, Lee discloses a housing (16, 18, 20), wherein the dynamic braking assembly, the static braking assembly and the linkage are housed in the housing (see FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 15, Lee discloses that the static brake assembly is hydraulic (see col. 7, lines 14-27) and Hodkinson teaches that the dynamic braking assembly is hydraulic (see page 1, lines 108-114).
Regarding claim 17, Lee discloses that the linkage is a mechanical linkage (see FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 18, Lee discloses that the mechanical linkage is a rocker arm (see FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 19, Lee discloses that the linkage is adapted to transfer a mechanical clamping force from the static braking assembly to the dynamic braking assembly to enable the dynamic braking assembly to apply a braking force (see col. 7, lines 28-38).
Regarding claim 20, Lee discloses a caliper assembly (see Abstract, FIG. 2) comprising: a housing (16, 18, 20); a first braking assembly (26) in the housing having an axial line of action (see FIG. 2); a second braking assembly (24) that is an SAHR (spring applied hydraulic release) park brake assembly (see col. 7, lines 14-27) in the housing having an axial line of action offset from axial line of action of the first brake assembly (see FIG. 2); and a mechanical linkage (28) in the housing and adapted to transfer a mechanical force from the SAHR park brake assembly to the first brake assembly (see FIG. 2).
Lee does not disclose that the first braking assembly is a hydraulic service brake assembly configured for dynamic service braking applications.
Hodkinson teaches a caliper assembly (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-3) comprising a first braking assembly (28) configured as a hydraulic braking assembly configured for dynamic service braking applications (see page 1, lines 108-114) and a second braking assembly (32) configured for park braking applications (see page 1, lines 115-126) and a load transfer device (24).
It would have been obvious to configure the first braking assembly of Lee to operate as a hydraulically operated service brake to prevent cycling fatigue of the parking brake spring (e.g. if the piston (44) is operated hydraulically independently of the service brake, the springs (144, 146) are not unnecessarily compressed and expanded) and to improve responsiveness of the service brakes (e.g. service brakes operated by the spring are limited by how quickly fluid can be vented from the chamber (22) by operation of the springs).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 13 and 20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection noted above.
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 inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J LANE whose telephone number is (571)270-5988. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-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.
/NICHOLAS J LANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
December 27, 2025