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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments submitted on 06/10/2026 have been considered and entered. Claims 1, 3, 9 and 11 have been amended and claims 2, 4-8, 10 and 12-16 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3, 9 and 11 are pending in the present application.
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 1, 3, 9 and 11 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 claim recites “the drum has an air flow path formed inside the friction surface such that the linings and the friction surface are separated by the air flow path, wherein the air flow path includes a first air flow path extending in an axial direction of the drum and provided inside the friction surface; and a second air flow path extending from the first air flow path to the friction surface” in line 8 of the claim. It is not clear if the applicant is referring to the air that flows or travels through the air flow path separates the linings of the brake shoes (13 and 14) from the friction surface (51) of the drum, wherein the air that flows or travels through the air flow path, functions as a return force to move the linings away from the friction surface or the space formed between the linings and the friction surface as shown in fig. 5. In other words, it is not clear how the linings are being separated from the friction surface as recited in the claim. The examiner further notes that it is not clear how the air flow paths are provided inside the friction surface as recited in the claim, since it appears that the air flow paths are formed underneath the friction surface and inside the cross-section of the cylindrical wall of the drum 50 as shown in fig. 3 or if the applicant is considering the entire cross-section of the cylindrical wall of the drum as the width of the friction surface. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites “the drum has an air flow path formed inside the friction surface in consideration of the restoring force of the restoring member such that the linings and the friction surface are separated by the air flow path, wherein the air flow path includes a first air flow path extending in an axial direction of the drum and provided inside the friction surface; and a second air flow path extending from the first air flow path to the friction surface” in line 10 of the claim. It is not clear if the applicant is referring to the air that flows or travels through the air flow path separates the linings of the brake shoes (13 and 14) from the friction surface (51) of the drum, wherein the air that flows or travels through the air flow path, functions as a return force to move the linings away from the friction surface or the space formed between the linings and the friction surface as shown in fig. 5. In other words, it is not clear how the linings are being separated from the friction surface as recited in the claim. The examiner further notes that it is not clear how the air flow paths are provided inside the friction surface as recited in the claim, since it appears that the air flow paths are formed underneath the friction surface and inside the cross-section of the cylindrical wall of the drum 50 as shown in fig. 3 or if the applicant is considering the entire cross-section of the cylindrical wall of the drum as the width of the friction surface. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claims 3 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, 9 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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
Prosecution Insights