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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 4 appears to incorrectly identify lines E1, E2 and F2. The specification identifies line “F2” as being a normal line that is normal to the tangent line “F1” (see ¶ 0076). Figure 4, however, shows the lines “F2” as being non-perpendicular to the corresponding tangent lines “F1” (see FIG. 4, below). Furthermore, the lines extending perpendicular to the tangent lines are labeled as “E1” and “E2” (see FIG. 4, below). 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
768
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Duplicate Claim Warning
Applicant is advised that should claims 1-3 be found allowable, claim 5-7 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).
In the present case, claims 1 and 5 are substantively the same, with the only difference being the location of the phrase “based on a direction in which the operating cam presses the second roller.”
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 1-3, 5-7, 9-15 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 independent claim 1, the phrases “two rollers” and “a first roller and a second roller” are indefinite because it is unclear whether the first and second rollers are the same as the previously recited “two rollers.” For purposes of examination, the first and second rollers will be interpreted as being the same as the two rollers.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “the direction in which the operating cam presses the second roller” lacks antecedent basis, thereby rendering it unclear which direction is being referenced.
Regarding independent claim 5, the phrases “a roller” and “a first roller and a second roller” are indefinite because it is unclear whether either of the first and second rollers are the same as the previously recited “roller.” For purposes of examination, one of the first and second rollers will be interpreted as being the same as the roller.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “the operating cam” lacks antecedent basis, rendering it unclear which element is being referenced.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “a pair of pressing portions” is indefinite because it is unclear whether this is the same as, a part of, or distinct from the previously recited
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-3, 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Berwanger (US 2016/0123414).
Regarding independent claim 1, Berwanger discloses a method of setting a contact position between an operating cam (22) and two rollers (24, 26) (see Abstract; FIG. 1) for an air brake (see ¶ 0006, “air chambers”) which includes a leading shoe (18) and a trailing shoe (20) respectively provided with a first roller (24) and a second roller (26) at first end portions thereof and disposed to face each other on a back plate (16) fixed to an axle to rotate about second end portions thereof (see ¶ 0004); a first lining (A) (see Annotated FIG. 1, below) and a second lining (B) (see Annotated FIG. 1, below) respectively provided on external surfaces of the leading shoe (18) and the trailing shoe (20); a drum (12) disposed on a circumference of the back plate to rotate together with a wheel of a vehicle (see ¶ 0004); and the operating cam disposed to support the first roller and the second roller therebetween to rotate in a direction of expanding a gap between the leading shoe and the trailing shoe so that the first and second linings press the drum during braking (see FIG. 1, ¶ 0005), the method comprising: setting the contact position between the operating cam and the second roller so that, during braking, a direction (C) (see Annotated FIG. 1, below) of a reaction force generated toward the drum at a point (D) (see Annotated FIG. 1, below) between the second lining and the drum is formed to be deflected from a normal line (E) (see Annotated FIG. 1) at the point toward a first direction (F) (see Annotated FIG. 1, below), wherein the direction of the reaction force is determined based on a direction in which the operating cam presses the second roller during the braking (see Annotated FIG. 1), and wherein the first direction is a direction in which the drum rotates based on backward movement of the vehicle (see FIG. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
616
650
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Baumgartner discloses that the direction in which the operating cam presses the second roller is a direction in which an extension line extends from a contact point between the second roller and the operating cam to a center portion of the second roller (see FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Baumgartner discloses that the air brake further includes a return spring (G) connected between the leading shoe and the trailing shoe (see Annotated FIG. 1, below), and wherein a rotation center of the operating cam, a center of the first roller, and a center of the second roller are positioned on a straight line, and the straight line is parallel to a return spring (see FIG. 1).
Regarding independent claim 5, Berwanger discloses a method of setting a contact position between an operating cam (22) and two rollers (24, 26) (see Abstract; FIG. 1) for an air brake (see ¶ 0006, “air chambers”) which includes a leading shoe (18) and a trailing shoe (20) respectively provided with a first roller (24) and a second roller (26) at first end portions thereof and disposed to face each other on a back plate (16) fixed to an axle to rotate about second end portions thereof (see ¶ 0004); a first lining (A) (see Annotated FIG. 1, below) and a second lining (B) (see Annotated FIG. 1, below) respectively provided on external surfaces of the leading shoe (18) and the trailing shoe (20); a drum (12) disposed on a circumference of the back plate to rotate together with a wheel of a vehicle (see ¶ 0004); and the operating cam disposed to support the first roller and the second roller therebetween to rotate in a direction of expanding a gap between the leading shoe and the trailing shoe so that the first and second linings press the drum during braking (see FIG. 1, ¶ 0005), the method comprising: setting the contact position between the operating cam and the second roller so that based on a direction in which the operating cam presses the second roller during braking (see FIG. 1), a direction (C) (see Annotated FIG. 1, below) of a reaction force generated toward the drum at a point (D) (see Annotated FIG. 1, below) between the second lining and the drum is deflected from a normal line (E) (see Annotated FIG. 1) at the point toward a first direction (F) (see Annotated FIG. 1, below), and wherein the first direction is a direction in which the drum rotates based on backward movement of the vehicle (see FIG. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
616
650
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Baumgartner discloses that the direction in which the operating cam presses the second roller is a direction in which an extension line extends from a contact point between the second roller and the operating cam to a center portion of the second roller (see FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Baumgartner discloses that the air brake further includes a return spring (G) connected between the leading shoe and the trailing shoe (see Annotated FIG. 1, below), and wherein a rotation center of the operating cam, a center of the first roller, and a center of the second roller are positioned on a straight line, and the straight line is parallel to a return spring (see FIG. 1).
Regarding independent claim 9, Berwanger discloses an air brake (see ¶ 0006, “air chambers”) which includes a leading shoe (18) and a trailing shoe (20) respectively provided with a first roller (24) and a second roller (26) at first end portions thereof and disposed to face each other on a back plate (16) fixed to an axle to rotate about second end portions thereof (see ¶ 0004); a first lining (A) (see Annotated FIG. 1, below) and a second lining (B) (see Annotated FIG. 1, below) respectively provided on external surfaces of the leading shoe (18) and the trailing shoe (20); a drum (12) disposed on a circumference of the back plate to rotate together with a wheel of a vehicle (see ¶ 0004); and the operating cam disposed to support the first roller and the second roller therebetween to rotate in a direction of expanding a gap between the leading shoe and the trailing shoe so that the first and second linings press the drum during braking (see FIG. 1, ¶ 0005), wherein, during braking, a direction (C) (see Annotated FIG. 1, below) of a reaction force generated toward the drum at a point (D) (see Annotated FIG. 1, below) between the second lining and the drum is formed to be deflected from a normal line (E) (see Annotated FIG. 1) at the point toward a first direction (F) (see Annotated FIG. 1, below), wherein the direction of the reaction force is determined based on a direction in which the operating cam presses the second roller during the braking (see Annotated FIG. 1), and wherein the first direction is a direction in which the drum rotates based on backward movement of the vehicle (see FIG. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
616
650
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Berwanger discloses that the operating cam forms an origin symmetrical structure with respect to a rotation center thereof and as a whole forms a tilde shape (see FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Berwanger discloses that a pair of pressing portions forming outwardly convexly curved surfaces to press the first roller and the second roller during the braking (see FIG. 1); and a pair of slimming grooves formed inwardly concavely on an opposite side of each of the pressing portions (see FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Baumgartner discloses that the direction in which the operating cam presses the second roller is a direction in which an extension line extends from a contact point between the second roller and the operating cam to a center portion of the second roller (see FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Baumgartner discloses that the air brake further includes a return spring (G) connected between the leading shoe and the trailing shoe (see Annotated FIG. 1, below), and wherein a rotation center of the operating cam, a center of the first roller, and a center of the second roller are positioned on a straight line, and the straight line is parallel to a return spring (see FIG. 1).
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 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berwanger (US 2016/0123414) in view of Newstead et al. (US 3,677,374).
Regarding claim 12, Berwanger does not disclose that a rotation angle of the operating cam is directly proportional to a movement angle of the second roller.
Newstead teaches an operating cam (2) for a brake (see Abstract, FIG. 3), wherein that a rotation angle of the operating cam is directly proportional to a movement angle of the second roller (see col. 1, lines 44-45).
It would have been obvious to configure the operating cam of Berwanger such that the rotation angle is directly proportional to a movement angle of the second roller to utilize a known cam configuration in existing brake systems that would provide a readily ascertainable and predictable movement of the brake shoe for a given rotation of the cam.
Regarding claim 13, Newstead teaches that the rotation angle of the operating cam and a movement angle of the second roller are directly proportional while maintaining an initial contact point in a state of being inclined by a predetermined angle (see col. 1, lines 44-45; the “constant rise with respect to angular displacement” would maintain the contact position).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12-Mar-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of independent claims 1, 5 and 9 as being anticipated in view of Berwanger, Applicant argues that “Berwanger merely discloses a brake assembly, in which the cam 56 presses the roller and the brake shoe in a direction parallel to a plane 116 by adjusting and offsetting the roller position” (see Amendment, page 8). Berwanger, however, discloses a force that is applied in direction (30). When this force is translated to the contact area between the shoe and the drum, the direction of the force (30) is deflected from a normal line, as shown in annotated FIG. 1, 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
May 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights