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 .
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 1-12 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 claim 1, the limitation “wherein from a middle initial position the actuator drives the spreading actuator when driven in one direction of the two movement directions starting” is unclear. The phrase "when driven in one direction of the two movement directions starting," is unclear. The word "starting" appears to be out of place.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rinsma (US-6311807) in view of Yokoyama et al. (US-20160339888).
Regarding claim 1, Rinsma discloses brake device for a motor vehicle comprising: a brake element (11 and 12) for generating a frictionally locking connection to a rotating component (col. 4, line 33, disc not shown); an actuator (32 or 33) which can be driven in two movement directions (see col. 4, lines 25-27, col. 4, lines 53-56; it has been interpreted that 32 and/or 33 is capable of rotating both directions); an adjusting device (33) arranged in an actuator housing of the actuator for compensating wear of the rotating component and a spreading actuator (18/19/20/21/22) arranged in the actuator housing which moves the brake element toward the rotating component and away from the rotating component when driven by the actuator component (col. 4, lines 25-61); wherein from a middle initial position (col. 4, line 50, rest position) the actuator drives the spreading actuator when driven in one direction of the two movement directions starting, and drives the adjusting device in an opposite direction (col. 4, lines 25-61).
Rinsma lacks wherein the brake is a drum brake. Yokoyama et al. teaches wherein a brake actuator is configured to be used on either a disc or drum brake (see ¶ 0076). Yokoyama et al. teaches wherein any brake mechanism with a parking mechanism that holds pressing force by pressing (propelling) a friction member (pad, shoe) against a rotating member (disc rotor, drum) upon the actuation of an electric actuator (electric motor) may be used, such as an electric disc brake having an electric caliper, an electric drum brake using an electric actuator to press a shoe on a drum for braking force application, a disc brake having a parking brake of electric drum type, or a mechanism using an electrical actuator to pull a cable to hold a parking brake (see ¶ 0076).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the adjustment mechanism of Rinsma in the environment of a drum brake as taught by Yokoyama et al. at least because both serve the identical, fundamental functional purpose of converting a braking input (hydraulic pressure or electrical signal) into a mechanical force that causes a frictional component to contact a rotating member.
Regarding claim 2, Rinsma discloses wherein the initial position is the position of the actuator, in which it is not loaded with energy (col. 4, lines 50-53, in the rest position).
Regarding claim 3, Rinsma discloses wherein the actuator (33) has an electric motor (3).
Regarding claim 4, Rinsma discloses wherein the actuator (33) has a housing (fig 1 at least 2) with pressure pieces (10/13) arranged therein for supporting the brake elements (11/12) and the adjusting device (33).
Regarding claim 6, Rinsma discloses wherein the spreading actuator has two ramp disks (18/20) which can be rotated counter to one another, and supported indirectly on pressure pieces (at least 10), and wherein due to the shape of the ramp disks an axial distance between the ramp disks increases in case of a rotation counter to one another (col. 4, lines 45-61).
Regarding claim 8, Rinsma discloses wherein the adjusting device (33) has an adjusting nut (14) which is screwed on the axle (15) via an adjusting thread (fig 1), and in that the adjusting nut is secured in the initial position against rotation in a positively locking or non-positive manner (col. 4, lines 25-61).
Regarding claim 10, Rinsma discloses wherein the adjusting nut (14) is arranged in the force flow between the axle (15) and the one pressure piece (10).
Regarding claim 11, Rinsma discloses wherein the adjusting nut (14, fig 2) has a latching means (26) with a latching disk (27/29) or with an adjusting spring (23 and/or 28).
Regarding claim 12, Rinsma discloses wherein an adjusting cage (24) engages around the adjusting nut (at least at 14, fig 1) with one end, and supports the adjusting spring (23) with the other end (fig 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, and 9 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 JAMES K HSIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-6259. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5, Monday-Friday.
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.
/J.K.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/NICHOLAS J LANE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616