DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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) has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because it does not end in a period. Appropriate correction is required.
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 3-9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites, “the sleeve further comprising a shoulder extending between the neck and the body”. This was previously recited in claim 1. It is unclear if a further shoulder is being recited.
Claim 4 recites, “a first direction of rotation of the worm gear extends the threaded shaft outwardly from the sleeve”. It is unclear if this claim is reciting a method step due to the active language of “extends”, despite the claim being directed to an apparatus. It is recommended to amend the claim to clearly recite an apparatus, using language such as “configured to extend”
Claim 7 recites, “a second of rotation of the worm gear retracts the threaded shaft inwardly toward the sleeve”. It is unclear if this claim is reciting a method step due to the active language of “retracts”, despite the claim being directed to an apparatus. It is recommended to amend the claim to clearly recite an apparatus, using language such as “configured to retract”
Dependent claims not specifically mentioned are rejected due to dependency on a rejected base claim for failing to cure the deficiencies of the base claim.
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 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du Buc et al. (U.S. 3143795) in view of Morris Commercial Cars (GB 335260 A) (hereinafter ‘Morris’).
Regarding claim 1, Du Boc discloses (figs. 1-2) A slack adjuster for a vehicle drum brake (abstract at least), the slack adjuster comprising:
a sleeve (26) having a neck, a shoulder, and a body extending from the neck, the shoulder extending between the neck and the body (see annotated figure below);
a threaded shaft (32) rotatably engaging the neck (at 36) such that rotation of the threaded shaft extends and retracts the threaded shaft out of and into the neck (as shown, shaft rotates thereby causing extension of the shaft 32 from the neck);
a first slotted head (28) being affixed to the body, the first slotted head being configured for engagement by a first brake shoe (16);
a second slotted head (54) being rotatably coupled to the threaded shaft (col. 3 lines 1-9: “integral with the stern 32 is a projection 47 having a groove 48 wherein nibs 50 are received which are formed from socket 52 fitting over the projection 47. The socket 52 includes a slotted end 54 fitting over web 56 of the shoe 18 and thereby preventing rotation of the socket 52”), wherein the second slotted head remains in an engagement orientation (engaged with the shoe) while the threaded shaft rotates to extend or retract, the engagement orientation being configured for the second slotted head to be engaged by a second brake shoe (as shown).
PNG
media_image1.png
319
742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 2 of Du Boc showing body, shoulder and neck.
While Du Boc discloses a gear 40 connected to the threaded shaft and rotating the threaded shaft by rotating the gear 40, and the gear 40 being engageable by a screwdriver, Du Boc does not appear to disclose a worm gear with associated head and slot for engagement with the screwdriver. In the same field of endeavor of slack adjusters for vehicle drum brakes, Morris teaches a worm gear (c) engaging a threaded shaft (a) wherein the threaded shaft is rotated by rotation of the worm gear; a head (b) being coupled to the worm gear, the head having a slot (j) therein, the slot being configured for engagement by a screwdriver wherein the worm gear is configured to be rotated by the screwdriver (page 1 lines 80-89). See annotated figure below for worm gear provided in combination with the structure of Du Boc, where the worm gear is housed in the housing that is fixed to left side at 26/36, since it cannot rotate.
PNG
media_image2.png
260
676
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 2 of Du Boc showing placement of worm gear and housing thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have converted the gear 40 of Du Boc to a worm gear with slotted head to increase mechanical force to operate the adjusting mechanism. With the device of Du Boc being adjusted by placing the screwdriver in individual teeth and pushing up or down on the teeth, the mechanism acts like a simple lever. Meanwhile, the worm gear of Morris has significant advantages over a lever, because a worm gear / screw mechanism has increased mechanical advantage and finer adjustment. Further, the screwdriver can be placed in the slot of Morris and continually adjusted until the desired setting is reached, while the simple gear of Du Boc must be rotated partially and the screwdriver removed and placed into another gear tooth to further adjust.
Regarding claim 2, Du Boc as modified teaches a housing being coupled to the sleeve (see annotated fig below, and as modified above), wherein the worm gear is rotatably coupled to the housing (it is rotatable and mounted in the housing thus it is “rotatably coupled”) and wherein the head extends outwardly from the housing (see fig. 2)
PNG
media_image3.png
286
530
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 1 of Morris.
Regarding claim 3, Du Boc as modified teaches the sleeve further comprising a shoulder extending between the neck and the body (see annotated figure of Du Boc above), wherein the housing is attached to the body (indirectly at least) proximate to the neck (as modified, all elements are “proximate” each other since they are all within the brake drum and relatively close to each other, so the housing is also “proximate” to the neck, absent other recited structural association).
Regarding claims 4 and 7, Du Boc as modified teaches a first direction of rotation of the worm gear extends the threaded shaft outwardly from the sleeve, and a second direction of rotation of the worm gear retracts the threaded shaft inwardly toward the sleeve (typical operation, the adjusting mechanism is turned one way to extend and the opposite way to retract).
Regarding claims 5-6 and 8-9, Du Boc as modified does not appear to disclose which rotation direction (clockwise or counterclockwise) results in the extension of the threaded shaft. It is noted that in Du Boc, whichever direction results in extension, the opposite direction results in retraction, so only 2 configurations are possible: 1) clockwise extension and counterclockwise retraction, or 2) counterclockwise extension and clockwise retraction. Du Boc as modified discloses one of these but it is unclear which one. Regardless, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected either clockwise or counterclockwise for extension of the threaded shaft (thereby necessarily selecting the opposite direction for retraction) as an obvious matter of engineering design choice. As previously mentioned, Du Boc discloses one of these two configurations, and it is merely unclear which one is disclosed. However, it is noted that selecting counterclockwise instead of clockwise for the extension direction amounts to a mere reversal of parts, which has been held to involve only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. One of ordinary skill in the art could select either rotation direction to correspond to the extension direction as desired based on availability of parts, handedness of the user, or other considerations. Upon selecting the first direction as clockwise, the combination of references is readable on claims 5 and 8, and upon selecting the first direction as counterclockwise, the combination is readable on claims 6 and 9.
Regarding claim 10, Du Boc as modified teaches the threaded shaft extends through the body (see fig. 2, at least partially).
Regarding claim 11, Du Boc discloses (figs. 1-2) A slack adjuster for a vehicle drum brake (abstract at least), the slack adjuster comprising:
a sleeve (26) having a neck, a shoulder, and a body extending from the neck, the shoulder extending between the neck and the body (see annotated figure below);
a threaded shaft (32) rotatably engaging the neck (at 36) such that rotation of the threaded shaft extends and retracts the threaded shaft out of and into the neck (as shown, shaft rotates thereby causing extension of the shaft 32 from the neck), the threaded shaft extending through the body (see fig. 2, at least partially);
a first slotted head (28) being affixed to the body, the first slotted head being configured for engagement by a first brake shoe (16);
a second slotted head (54) being rotatably coupled to the threaded shaft (col. 3 lines 1-9: “integral with the stern 32 is a projection 47 having a groove 48 wherein nibs 50 are received which are formed from socket 52 fitting over the projection 47. The socket 52 includes a slotted end 54 fitting over web 56 of the shoe 18 and thereby preventing rotation of the socket 52”), wherein the second slotted head remains in an engagement orientation (engaged with the shoe) while the threaded shaft rotates to extend or retract, the engagement orientation being configured for the second slotted head to be engaged by a second brake shoe (as shown), whereby extension or retraction of the threaded shaft from the neck adjusts a position of the first brake shoe relative to the second brake shoe (extension causes the brake shoes to be further apart from one another, or retraction causes the shoes to be closer together).
While Du Boc discloses a gear 40 connected to the threaded shaft and rotating the threaded shaft by rotating the gear 40, and the gear 40 being engageable by a screwdriver, Du Boc does not appear to disclose a worm gear with associated head and slot for engagement with the screwdriver. In the same field of endeavor of slack adjusters for vehicle drum brakes, Morris teaches a worm gear (c) rotatably coupled to a housing (see annotated figure above), the housing being coupled to the sleeve proximate the shoulder (see annotated figure above), the worm gear engaging a threaded shaft (a) wherein the threaded shaft is rotated by rotation of the worm gear; a head (b) extending outwardly (axially) from the housing, the head being coupled to the worm gear, the head having a slot (j) therein, the slot being configured for engagement by a screwdriver wherein the worm gear is configured to be rotated by the screwdriver when the slot engages the screwdriver (page 1 lines 80-89). See annotated figure above for worm gear provided in combination with the structure of Du Boc, where the worm gear is housed in the housing that is fixed to left side at 26/36, since it cannot rotate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have converted the gear 40 of Du Boc to a worm gear with slotted head to increase mechanical force to operate the adjusting mechanism. With the device of Du Boc being adjusted by placing the screwdriver in individual teeth and pushing up or down on the teeth, the mechanism acts like a simple lever. Meanwhile, the worm gear of Morris has significant advantages over a lever, because a worm gear / screw mechanism has increased mechanical advantage and finer adjustment. Further, the screwdriver can be placed in the slot of Morris and continually adjusted until the desired setting is reached, while the simple gear of Du Boc must be rotated partially and the screwdriver removed and placed into another gear tooth to further adjust.
Du Boc as modified does not appear to disclose which rotation direction (clockwise or counterclockwise) results in the extension of the threaded shaft. It is noted that in Du Boc, whichever direction results in extension, the opposite direction results in retraction, so only 2 configurations are possible: 1) clockwise extension and counterclockwise retraction, or 2) counterclockwise extension and clockwise retraction. Du Boc as modified discloses one of these but it is unclear which one. Regardless, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected either clockwise or counterclockwise for extension of the threaded shaft (thereby necessarily selecting the opposite direction for retraction) as an obvious matter of engineering design choice. As previously mentioned, Du Boc discloses one of these two configurations, and it is merely unclear which one is disclosed. However, it is noted that selecting counterclockwise instead of clockwise for the extension direction amounts to a mere reversal of parts, which has been held to involve only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. One of ordinary skill in the art could select either rotation direction to correspond to the extension direction as desired based on availability of parts, handedness of the user, or other considerations. Upon selecting the first direction as clockwise, the combination of references is readable on claims 5 and 8, and upon selecting the first direction as counterclockwise, the combination is readable on claims 6 and 9.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. The documents listed on the PTO-892 disclose various manual slack adjusters for drum brakes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID MORRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3595. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru 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.
/DAVID MORRIS/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
/DAVID R MORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616