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
Amendments submitted on 12/10/2025 have been considered and entered. Claims 1 and 14 have been amended and claim 13 has been canceled. Claims 1-12 and 14-17 are pending in the present 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.
Claims 1-5, 9, 10, 12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JP 2005009651 A) in view of Matoba (JP 2008196684 A).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki discloses a drum brake system (figs. 1-3) for a vehicle, comprising a brake drum (4) and a shell (9), the shell (9) at least partially encasing the brake drum at an axially outer side and/or an axially inner side and/or a circumferentially outer side.
Suzuki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above including a plurality of segments (note the plurality of parts or members) but fails to disclose the shell is transparent, at least in a section as recited in the claim. However, Matoba discloses a shell (3) comprising a plurality of segments and a window hole (22) provided with a net (26); note the net here is considered to be transparent since it allows light to go through). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the present application was made to provide the shell of Suzuki with a transparent or a net portion as taught by Matoba will allow outside air to dissipate heat of the brake members while preventing invasion of foreign matter having a certain size.
Suzuki further discloses all of the limitations as set forth above including at least two part shell (9; note the parts 5 and 10 in fig. 1) but fails to disclose a first half-shell covering half of the brake drum and a second half-shell covering the remaining half of the brake drum as recited in the claim. However, Matoba discloses a shell (3) comprising at least two half shells (note figs. 9A and 9B), wherein each half shell is configured to cover half of the brake assembly. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the present application was made to modify the shell of Suzuki with to cover the brake assembly as taught by Matoba will allow quick and easy access to the brake assembly to be cleaned or serviced without the entire shell assembly.
Re-claim 2, Suzuki discloses the shell (9 in fig. 1) is configured to rotate along with the brake drum (4), the shell preferably being attached to a wheel and/or an axle.
Re-claim 3, Suzuki discloses the shell (9) comprises a first outer segment (10, 11) being configured to cover at least a portion of the axially outer side of the brake drum (4), the first outer segment optionally being connected to a wheel hub (1), preferably removably connected to the wheel hub.
Re-claim 4, Suzuki discloses the shell (9) comprises a first inner segment (5), configured to cover at least a portion of the axially inner side of the brake drum.
Re-claim 5, Suzuki discloses the shell (9) comprises a first outer segment (10, 11) being configured to cover at least a portion of the axially outer side of the brake drum, the first inner segment (5) is connected to the first outer segment, preferably removably connected to the first outer segment, and/or wherein the first inner segment (5) is connected to the rim and/or to an axle (8).
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki discloses the shell but fails to disclose the shell comprises magnetic inserts for collecting metallic brake dust. However, Matoba discloses a shell comprising magnetic inserts (31). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the present application was made to provide the shell of Suzuki with magnetic inserts as taught by Matoba will prevent any circulation or scattering of the brake dust or pollutants during a braking operation.
Regarding claim 10, Suzuki discloses the shell but fails to disclose the shell comprises at least two segments that are connected to each other, preferably by an adhesive and/or by at least one bolt and/or by at least one screw. However, Matoba discloses a shell (3 in figs. 2-3) comprising at least two segments (7-8) that are connected to each other by a bolts (10). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the present application was made to modify the segments of the shell of Suzuki to be connected together by bolt as taught by Matoba will provide a stronger attachment of the shell segments and will allow easy access to the shell for maintenance.
Regarding claim 12, as set forth above, the modified shell of Suzuki in view of Matoba provides one of the segments with the magnet 31 and thus the section of the shell where the magnet is attached formed as two layers, wherein the magnet is iron and the shell being formed of different material.
Re-claim 14, Suzuki discloses the shell (9) comprises at least one cleaning opening (15), for rinsing an interior space of the shell and/or for applying suction to the inner space of the shell.
Regarding claim 15, Suzuki discloses a distance between an inner surface of the shell and the brake drum but fails to disclose the clearance to be at least 10 mm as recited in the claim. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the present application was made to provide a distance between an inner surface of the shell and the brake drum to be at least 10 mm as recited in the claim, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable in this case, the distance between an inner surface of the shell and the brake drum, involves only routine skill in the art as such distance will prevent any potential interference between the shell and the drum.
Regarding claim 16, Suzuki discloses the shell having a plurality of openings (15) exposing portions of the brake drum, but fails to disclose the exposed portions of the brake drum to be at least 25% of an area of the axially inner side and/or an area of the axially outer side of the brake drum as recited in the claim. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the present application was made to provide the exposed portion of the brake drum to be at least 25% of the brake drum as recited in the claim, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable in this case, the exposed portion of the brake drum, involves only routine skill in the art as such exposed portion of the brake drum will allow outside air to dissipate heat of the brake members while preventing invasion of foreign matter having a certain size.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JP 2005009651 A) in view of Matoba (JP 2008196684 A), and further in view of Krantz (WO 2005091838 A2).
Regarding claims 6-7, Suzuki discloses the inner segment of the shell (5) is configured to be non-rotating and attached to an axle (8) such that the brake drum (4) rotates within the shell but fails to disclose the shell being configured to be attached to a wheel arch as recited in the claims. However, Krantz discloses a pollutant trap member (120, 305, 325 in fig. 14) attached to a vehicle wheel well or wheel arch (355). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the present application was made to attach the shell of Suzuki to the wheel well or the wheel arch as taught by Krantz will allow easy access to the shell for maintenance.
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki discloses the shell but fails to disclose the shell comprises a coating layer for adhesion of brake dust. However, Krantz discloses a pollutant trap member comprises a coating layer for adhesion of brake dust and other pollutants (note lines 18-20, page 11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the present application was made to provide the shell of Suzuki with a coating layer as taught by Krantz will prevent any circulation or scattering of the brake dust or pollutants during a braking operation.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JP 2005009651 A) in view of Matoba (JP 2008196684 A), and further in view of Sand (US 2009/0194378 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Suzuki fails to disclose the segments are made of a different material from each other as recited in the claim. However, Sand discloses a brake shield comprising a shield portion and a cover portion, wherein different materials are used for each (note [0011]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the present application was made to modify the segments of the shell of Suzuki to be formed of different materials as taught by Sand will allow each of the segments to be selectively used for a specific application or an environment.
Claims 1 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Handa (JP 2001099200 A) in view of Matoba (JP 2008196684 A).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Handaa discloses a drum brake system (figs. 1-4) of a rear axle for a vehicle, comprising a brake drum (105) and a shell (106), the shell (106) at least partially encasing the brake drum at an axially outer side and/or an axially inner side and/or a circumferentially outer side.
Handa discloses all of the limitations as set forth above but fails to disclose the shell comprises a plurality of segments wherein at least one of the segments is transparent as recited in the claim. However, Matoba discloses a shell (3) comprising a plurality of segments and a window hole (22) provided with a net (26); note the net here is considered to be transparent since it allows light to go through). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the present application was made to provide the shell of Handa with a transparent or a net portion as taught by Matoba will allow outside air to dissipate heat of the brake members while preventing invasion of foreign matter having a certain size.
Handa discloses all of the limitations as set forth above including a shell (106) but fails to disclose the shell comprising a first half-shell covering half of the brake drum and a second half-shell covering the remaining half of the brake drum as recited in the claim. However, Matoba discloses a shell (3) comprising at least two half shells (note figs. 9A and 9B), wherein each half shell is configured to cover half of the brake assembly. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the present application was made to modify the shell of Handa with to cover the brake assembly as taught by Matoba will allow quick and easy access to the brake assembly to be cleaned or serviced without the entire shell assembly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Suzuki and Matoba, the applicant argues that Suzuki and Matoba, individually or in combination, do not disclose, teach or suggest a first half-shell covering half of the brake drum and a second half-shell covering the remaining half of the brake drum as recited in claim 1. The examiner disagrees. Suzuki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above including at least two part shell (9; note the parts 5 and 10 in fig. 1) but fails to disclose a first half-shell covering half of the brake drum and a second half-shell covering the remaining half of the brake drum as recited in the claim. However, Matoba discloses a shell (3) comprising at least two half shells (note figs. 9A and 9B), wherein each half shell is configured to cover half of the brake assembly. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the present application was made to modify the shell of Suzuki with to cover the brake assembly as taught by Matoba will allow quick and easy access to the brake assembly to be cleaned or serviced without the entire shell assembly.
Handa discloses all of the limitations as set forth above including a shell (106) but fails to disclose the shell comprising a first half-shell covering half of the brake drum and a second half-shell covering the remaining half of the brake drum as recited in the claim. However, Matoba discloses a shell (3) comprising at least two half shells (note figs. 9A and 9B), wherein each half shell is configured to cover half of the brake assembly. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the present application was made to modify the shell of Handa with to cover the brake assembly as taught by Matoba will allow quick and easy access to the brake assembly to be cleaned or serviced without the entire shell assembly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHBUBUR RASHID whose telephone number is (571)272-7218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am to 10pm EST.
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 5712727124. 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.
/MAHBUBUR RASHID/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights