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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Goodell (US-20190128350).
Regarding claim 1, Goodell discloses a brake drum for a vehicle drum brake (10), the brake drum comprising: an inner circumferential surface (fig 4, 20/24/60/62) that extends around a rotation axis and that is configured to be contacted by a brake shoe (36) for generating a braking effect; and a brake dust collector (figs 1-4, at least 58); wherein at least one dust-guiding groove (60 and/or 62 and/or 56) is provided in the inner circumferential surface ([0027] line 1) and extends towards the brake dust collector (figs 1 and 4 and [0029], at least wherein 60 and/or 62 and/or 56 operate as dust egresses), wherein the brake dust collector (58) is arranged in or at a surface of the brake drum that extends at an angle to the rotation axis (figs 1, 3, and 4).
Regarding claim 2, Goodell discloses wherein the dust-guiding groove (60 and/or 62 and/or 56) extends from a first end portion (fig 2, at least at or near 68) at a first axial distance to the brake dust collector (58) to second axial end portion (fig 2, at or near 70) that is axially closer to the brake dust collector (at least fig 2 or fig 4 where ends of 62 are at different axial distances to 58).
Regarding claim 3, Goodell discloses wherein the dust-guiding groove has a non-linear course (at least a bent or curved portion of 60 and/or 62 and/or 56). The limitation “A non-linear course” has been interpreted as being “a bent or curved course as e.g. defined by a longitudinal axis of said groove” as defined in Applicants [0031].
Regarding claim 4, Goodell discloses wherein the dust-guiding groove (at least 60 and/or 62 and/or 56) extends along the circumferential surface while covering a circumferential distance as well as an axial distance (at least figs 1, 3, and 4 and [0027]).
Regarding claim 5, Goodell discloses wherein dust-guiding groove defines at least a segment of a helix shape (fig 4 at least wherein the trapezoidal ends of 62 are angled towards 58 and have been interpreted as a segment or portion of a helix spiraling towards the hub section 44).
Regarding claim 6, Goodell discloses wherein at least two dust-guiding grooves (at least 60 and/or 62 and/or 56) are provided which (at least fig 4 providing multiple elements 62), at least in one section of the inner circumferential surface, extend next to one another (at least fig 4 and [0027]).
Regarding claim 7, Goodell discloses wherein the inner circumferential surface is comprised by a friction ring that (24) is arranged at an inner circumferential face of a drum member of the brake drum (figs 1-4).
Regarding claim 8, Goodell discloses wherein the circumferential surface is comprised by a drum member of the brake drum (fig 1, 10).
Regarding claim 9, Goodell discloses wherein the brake dust collector is arranged at a wall section forming a base surface of the brake drum (at least fig 1).
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodell (US-20190128350) in view of Mani et al. (US-20220275841).
Regarding claim 10, Goodell discloses as set forth above but lacks wherein the dust collector is a mesh, metallic mesh, an adhesive, or a fabric. Mani et al. teaches brake dust trap (210) for a drum brake (fig 3, 220) wherein the dust collector is a filter (210), mesh, metallic mesh, an adhesive, or a fabric ([0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the dust device and systems of Goodell with the filter of Mani et al. at least in order to capture pollutants rather than let them escape into the atmosphere (Mani et al, [0003]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the prior art of record lacks “wherein the brake dust collector is arranged in or at a surface of the brake drum that extends at an angle to the rotation axis” because Goodell is configured to expel the dust generated inside the drum, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Dust egress holes 58 have been interpreted as a brake dust collector at least because brake dust is lead to said holes, or collected by said holes, in order to be expelled from said holes. It has also been interpreted that at least some amount of dust will accumulate at said holes 58 and could be interpreted to be collected without being expelled. Regardless of whether the dust is expelled or not, 58 has been interpreted as a dust collector because claim 1 does not require or preclude retainment or expulsion of the dust. The limitation “brake dust collector” has been interpreted similarly by Goodell in at least [0004] wherein “a brake lining having two holes, with one hole for “air in” and another hole for “air out.” As air passes over the brake lining, the dust is collected. Air can also be suctioned through the device to collect brake dust”.
It has also been interpreted that dust egress holes 58 “arranged in or at a surface of the brake drum that extends at an angle to the rotation axis” as seen in figures 1-4 and described in [0025] wherein “Dust egress holes 58 are shown as extending between the interior drum surface 20 and the exterior drum surface 22 are distributed at appropriate locations around the drum 12, although only a single such dust egress hole could be used if desired. The dust egress hole or holes could be drilled or otherwise formed at a location or locations that help with balancing the drum during a machining process. As best shown in FIG. 4, eight of these dust egress holes 58 are approximately uniformly distributed about the drum 12 at locations between the chamfer 60 and the junction between the corner section 16 and the cylindrical wall 18.” At least surfaces shown at 18 have been interpreted to extend at an angle to the rotation axis.
It appears that the arguments with respect to claim 1 are more specific than the limitations set by the claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616