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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “locking pieces" of claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim 5 recites “the X-direction connecting piece”, however no antecedent basis is provided for this element. The claims previously recite “the X-direction extension piece”, but it is unclear whether “the X-direction connection piece” is intended to refer to the same structure or a different structure. For examination purposes, examiner has interpreted “the X-direction connection piece” as “the X-direction extension piece.”
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang (US 12078217).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a safety caliper cover (see Fig. 1), comprising:
a cover body (1), safety buckles (see Fig. 3), and locking pieces, wherein a length direction of the cover body (1) is an X-direction, a width direction of the cover body (1) is a Y-direction, and a thickness direction of the cover body (1) is a Z-direction;
the cover body (1) covers an outer surface side of a caliper of a wheel hub of an automobile; Z-direction connecting columns (231) are arranged on an inner surface of the cover body (1);
each of the safety buckles (see Fig. 3) comprises a fastening piece (4) and a Z-direction connecting lug (41) connected to the fastening piece (4);
the Z-direction connecting lug (41) corresponds to one of the Z-direction connecting columns (231);
a corresponding one of the locking pieces is used for locking with the one of the Z-direction connecting columns (231);
and the fastening piece (4) extends in at least two directions of the X-direction, the Y-direction, and the Z-direction, and forms a limit contact fit with an outer surface of the caliper.
Regarding claim 4, Zhang discloses the safety caliper cover according to claim 3, wherein the fastening piece (4) comprises a Z-direction extension piece (43) connected with the Y-direction extension piece (see J, Annotated Fig. 1A, Zhang below); and there is one or more right angle bends between the Z-direction extension piece and the Y-direction
PNG
media_image1.png
188
412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
extension piece (see Annotated Fig. 1A, Zhang below).
Annotated Fig. 1A, Zhang
Regarding claim 6, Zhang discloses the Z-direction connecting columns (231) are integrally molded with the cover body (1).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang discloses the safety caliper cover (1), wherein each of the safety buckles (see Fig. 3) is an integrally molded structural part.
Regarding claim 9, Zhang discloses one end of the Z-direction connecting lug (41) which is butted with the one of the Z-direction connecting columns (231) is flush with or is protruded from one side, close to the cover body (1), of the fastening piece (4).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang discloses the safety caliper cover (1) according to claim 1, wherein for each of the locking pieces, the locking piece is a screw bolt (see Z, Annotated Fig. 1B, Zhang) or a screw, and penetrates through the Z-direction connecting lug (41) to be locked with the one of the Z-direction connecting columns (231), or the locking piece is a nut; the one of the Z-direction connecting columns is provided with external screw threads; the Z-direction connecting lug is connected to the one of the Z-direction connecting columns in a sleeving manner and is matched and locked with the external screw threads through the nut; or the locking piece is a circlip; the one of the Z-direction connecting columns is provided with a clamping groove; and the Z-direction connecting lug is connected to the one of the Z-direction connecting columns in the sleeving manner and is matched and locked with the clamping groove through the circlip. (Note: the claim features are recited in the alternative and are not
PNG
media_image2.png
414
712
media_image2.png
Greyscale
positively required by the claim).
Annotated Fig. 1B, Zhang
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 2-3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 12078217) in view of Park (US 10962067).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang discloses the safety caliper cover according to claim 1, and a Z-direction connecting lug that is arranged on one side, deviating from the caliper.
Zhang does not disclose the fastening piece comprises a Y-direction extension piece.
Park teaches the fastening piece comprises a Y-direction extension piece (260).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the Y-direction extension piece taught by Park with the Z-direction connecting lug disclosed in Zhang in order to maintain the caliper cover in close contact with the brake caliper so as to not move left or right, thereby reducing a stress applied to the fastening portion by movement of the caliper cover (see Park, Col. 5:26-29).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang discloses the safety caliper cover according to claim 2.
Zhang does not disclose the fastening piece comprises an X-direction extension piece connected with the Y-direction extension piece; and the X-direction extension piece is bent at an angle or bent in an arc shape.
PNG
media_image3.png
193
192
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Park teaches the fastening piece comprises an X-direction extension piece (210) connected with the Y-direction extension piece (260); and the X-direction extension piece (210) is bent at an angle or bent in an arc shape (see B, Annotated Fig. 1A, Park below).
Annotated Fig. 1A, Park
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the X-direction extension piece taught by Park with the safety caliper cover disclosed in Zhang in order to tightly couple the fasten piece to the caliper cover in three orthogonal directions as disclosed by Park (Col. 5:30-35).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Zhang discloses the safety caliper cover as claimed in claim 4.
Zhang does not disclose the X-direction extension piece is disconnected from or connected with the Z-direction extension piece.
Park teaches the X-direction extension piece (210) is disconnected from or connected with the Z-direction extension piece (230).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the X-direction extension piece that is disconnected from or connected with the Z-direction extension piece taught by Park with the safety caliper cover disclosed in Zhang in order to firmly fix the safety caliper cover to the brake caliper to ensure stability (see Park, Col. 1:7-10).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 12078217) in view of Park (US 10962067), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zenzen (US 12516705).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang discloses the safety caliper cover according to claim 1.
Zhang does not disclose the Z-direction connecting lug is connected to an outer end of the one of the Z-direction connecting columns in a sleeving manner.
Zenzen teaches the Z-direction connecting lug (7) is connected to an outer end of the one of the Z-direction connecting columns (43) in a sleeving manner.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the Z-direction connecting lug connected to an outer end of the one of the Z-direction connecting columns in a sleeving manner as taught by Zenzen with the safety caliper cover disclosed by Zhang in order to securely and permanently hold the cover so that is it able to be mounted in a simple manner (see Zenzen, Col. 1:45-49).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Karem Akram Algarash whose telephone number is (571)272-5789. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-5pm.
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.
/K.A.A./
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616