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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/08/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the reference number 17 indicates partially open slit, fully open slit, and the pivot point on page 6 of the specification. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brooker et al. (US 2020/0248766 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Brooker et al. discloses a safety brake system comprising a round rotatable shaft (110 in figs. 1A-1B) locked with a constant-on braking device activated by a spring (notes the forcing element 135 which include a spring to provide the braking member 131with a force to clamp the shaft 110 in [0031]) and a switch-off device (133) for the braking device that can counteract the spring, so that the shaft (110) can be unlocked and can rotate when the switch-off device is active, characterized in that the constant-on braking device comprises a brake shoe (131) that can be pushed against the shaft by the spring and the switch-off device is a piezo actuator (133) that can counteract the spring (note [0028]-[0029]).
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.
Claims 2-4, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooker et al. (US 2020/0248766 A1) in view of Clark (US 3,756,354).
Re-claims 2 and 9, Brooker et al. discloses the shaft is surrounded by a brake body comprising a cylindrical hole with a sliding fit to the shaft (110), the brake body (131) is fixed to a stationary non-rotating element, where the brake body is provided with a fully open radial slit (1311, 131A, 131B in fig. 1A) that splits the brake body, but fails to disclose a partially open radial slit that provides an elastic region in the brake body, where the brake shoe comprises the part of the brake body between the fully open radial slit and the partially open radial slit and where the brake shoe can pivot around the elastic region and can be loaded by the spring against the shaft. However, Clark discloses a similar braking device comprising: a brake body (58) is provided with a fully open radial slit (64 in fig. 5) that splits the brake body and a partially open radial slit (60) in the brake body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the present application to modify the brake body of Brooker et al. with a partially open radial slit as taught by Clark will provide a deflection point so that the sides of the brake body engage the periphery of the shaft with approximately equal pressure when the braking is applied.
Re-claim 3, Brooker et al. discloses the brake body (131) has a ring shape.
Re-claim 4, Brooker et al. discloses a distance between the brake shoe and the shaft when the switch-off device is active is adjustable but fails to disclose the distance to be between 40 and 60 micrometer 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 set the distance to be between 40 and 60 micrometer, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art as such clearance will allow the braking members to operate efficiently.
Re-claim 8, Brooker et al. discloses the brake shoe (131) that covers majority of the circumference of the brake body but fails to disclose the brake shoe covering between 20 and 30% of the circumference of the brake body 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 brake shoe to cover between 20 and 30% of the circumference of the brake body as recited in the claim, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art as such coverage of the brake shoe will reduce overall weight of the brake device while providing efficient braking operation.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooker et al. (US 2020/0248766 A1) in view of Clark (US 3,756,354), and further in view of JP 4041813 B2 and XU (CN 2167360083 U).
Re-claims 5 and 6, the modified brake device of Brooker et al. discloses all claimed limitations a set forth above but fails to disclose the brake body is produced of a material with self-lubricating properties is a sintered bronze or brass and the shaft is produced of stainless steel as recited in the claims. However, JP 4041813 discloses a brake device for shaft type linear motor comprising: a shaft formed by a thin pipe made of stainless steel, and a brake body formed by a lining material 11 is made to be self-lubricating, and XU discloses a self-lubricating material such as brass. 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 shaft and the brake body of Brooker et al. to be formed of stainless steel and self-lubricating material as taught by each of JP 4041813 and XU since brass has good lubricating performance, and is wearable, temperature resistance and providing self-lubricating materials will prolong the service life.
Re-claim 7, Brooker et al. discloses the brake body (131 in figs. 1A-1B) and the shaft (110) are run-in.
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