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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-13, 16-20 are currently pending in this application. Claims 17-20 have been withdrawn. Claims 1-13, 16 are currently under examination.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JONES (7,055,662) in view of PERROT (1,875,759) and further in view of KING (3,650,360).
Regarding Claim 1, JONES teaches A drum brake comprising: a motor (38) configured to generate rotational driving force; a pair of presses (20)(20’) configured to press a brake shoe (24)(24’) toward an inner circumferential surface of a drum (12); and a power transmission unit configured to transmit the rotational driving force of the motor (38) to the presses, wherein: the power transmission unit includes a shaft (34) configured to be rotatable by the rotational driving force of the motor, and a cam (32) configured to be rotatable in association with rotation of the shaft (34), the drum brake further comprises a pair of rollers (26)(26’) rotatably fixed to the pair of presses (20)(20’), respectively, and rotatably contacting the cam (32) to convert rotary movement of the cam (32) into a translational movement,
JONES does not teach and the shaft and the cam are operably connected by a universal joint such that a rotational axis of the shaft and a rotational axis of the cam are angled from each other.
PERROT teaches the shaft (4) and the cam (3) are operably connected by a universal joint (end of 3)(end of 4)(9)(10)(11) such that a rotational axis of the shaft and a rotational axis of the cam are angled from each other (Figs. 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the brake in JONES so it has the universal joint in PERROT so the cam can float to equalize pressure between the shoes.
JONES as modified does not teach wherein: the power transmission unit further includes a pin coupled to the roller, each of the pair of presses includes a pressurizing unit body having a third plane, and pressurizing unit paddles protruding from the pressurizing unit body toward the cam, and each of the pressurizing unit paddles includes a hole or recess in which the pin is inserted; wherein an opening is formed at a side of the hole of at least one of the pressurizing unit paddles
KING teaches wherein: the power transmission unit further includes a pin (90) coupled to the roller (96), each of the pair of presses (82)(84) includes a pressurizing unit body having a third plane, and pressurizing unit paddles (88) protruding from the pressurizing unit body toward the cam (50), and each of the pressurizing unit paddles includes a hole or recess in which the pin (90) is inserted; wherein an opening is formed at a side of the hole of at least one of the pressurizing unit paddles (88) (KING Col. 2 lines 51-66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the transmission in JONES as modified so the rollers have the construction in KING so the roller assembly is easily manufactured.
Regarding Claim 2, JONES teaches wherein: the shaft (PERROT 4) includes a first yoke (PERROT end of 3) at an end of the shaft (PERROT 4) facing the cam (PERROT 3), the cam includes a second yoke (PERROT end of 4) at an end of the cam (PERROT end of 3) facing the shaft, and the first yoke of the shaft and the second yoke of the cam are arranged to intersect each other to form the universal joint.
Regarding Claim 16, JONES as modified does not teach wherein the roller includes a bearing (KING inner surface of 96).
KING teaches wherein the roller (KING 96) includes a bearing (KING inner surface of 96).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the transmission in JONES as modified so it has bearings as in KING so the roller turns smoothly
Claim(s) 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JONES (7,055,662) in view of PERROT (1,875,759), and KING (3,650,360) and further in view of KURZEJA (6,685,569).
Regarding Claim 3, JONES teaches wherein: the power transmission unit further includes a connector disposed between the shaft (PERROT 4) and the cam (PERROT 3) and having a vertical member and a horizontal member, and the vertical member of the universal joint is connected with the first yoke of the shaft and the horizontal member of the universal joint is connected with the second yoke of the cam.
JONES does not teach a spider.
KURZEJA teaches a spider (12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the brake in JONES as modified so it uses the universal joint type in KURZEJA so the universal joint operates smoothly and is more durable.
Regarding Claim 4, JONES as modified teaches wherein: the first yoke (KURZEJA 42) of the shaft includes a first yoke body portion having a first plane facing the second yoke (KURZEJA 40) of the cam, and a pair of first yoke paddles projecting from the first yoke body portion toward the second yoke of the cam, the second yoke of the cam includes a second yoke body portion having a second plane facing the first yoke of the shaft, and a pair of second yoke paddles projecting from the second yoke body portion toward the first yoke of the shaft, and the pair of first yoke paddles and the pair of second yoke paddles are arranged to intersect each other.
Regarding Claim 5, JONES as modified teaches wherein the universal joint (KURZEJA 10) has a first space provided between the second plane of the second yoke and one of the first yoke paddles, a second space provided between the first plane of the first yoke and one of the second yoke paddles, and a third space provided between the first yoke paddles and the second yoke paddles.
Regarding Claim 6, JONES as modified teaches wherein: each of the first yoke paddles includes a first engagement hole (KURZEJA 48) in which the vertical member of the universal joint is inserted, and each of the second yoke paddles includes a second engagement hole (KURZEJA 44) in which the horizontal member of the universal joint is inserted.
Regarding Claim 7, JONES as modified teaches wherein the power transmission unit further includes a fastening member (KURZEJA 100) accommodating a part of the spider therein and disposed between the first yoke paddles and the second yoke paddles.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JONES (7,055,662) in view of PERROT (1,875,759), and KING (3,650,360) and KURZEJA (6,685,569) and further in view of MENOSKY (6,893,350)
Regarding Claim 8, JONES as modified does not teach wherein the fastening member includes a plurality of through-holes such that the part of the spider disposed in the fastening member and ends of the vertical member and the horizontal member of the spider project outward through the through-holes.
MENOSKY teaches wherein the fastening member includes a plurality of through-holes such that the part of the spider disposed in the fastening member and ends of the vertical member and the horizontal member of the spider project outward through the through-holes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the universal joint in JONES as modified so it uses the construction in MENOSKY to dampen vibrations.
Claim(s) 9, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JONES (7,055,662) in view of PERROT (1,875,759), and KING (3,650,360) and further in view of KASPER (2018/0058525)
Regarding Claim 9, JONES as modified does not teach wherein the power transmission unit includes a first gear configured to be rotatable coaxially with a rotational axis of the motor, and a second gear rotatably engaged with the first gear and having a rotational axis parallel to the rotational axis of the motor.
KASPER teaches wherein the power transmission unit includes a first gear (ring gear of 140)(Fig. 5) configured to be rotatable coaxially with a rotational axis of the motor, and a second gear (sun gear of 140) rotatably engaged with the first gear and having a rotational axis parallel to the rotational axis of the motor (16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the transmission in JONES as modified so it uses the gear transmission in KASPER so enough torque can be transmitted to the cam using a rotary electric motor.
Regarding Claim 13, JONES as modified does not teach wherein the cam has a substantially S-shaped cross-section.
KASPER teaches wherein the cam (60) has a substantially S-shaped cross-section.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the transmission in JONES as modified so it uses the cam shape in KASPER so the actuator provides the desired force levels to the brake shoes for a given angular position of the camshaft.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JONES (7,055,662) in view of PERROT (1,875,759), and KING (3,650,360) and KASPER (2018/0058525) and further in view of GUTELIUS (2015/0204402)
Regarding Claim 10, JONES as modified does not teach wherein a diameter of the second gear is greater than a diameter of the first gear.
GUTELIUS teaches wherein a diameter of the second gear (98) is greater than a diameter of the first gear (92).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the transmission in JONES as modified so it uses the gear transmission in GUTELIUS so the motor and transmission packaging is a suitable size and shape for a given application.
Regarding Claim 11, JONES as modified does not teach wherein the first gear and the second gear are helical gears.
GUTELIUS teaches wherein the first gear and the second gear are helical gears [0034][0047].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the transmission in JONES as modified so it uses the gear transmission in GUTELIUS so the motor and transmission operates more quietly.
Regarding Claim 12, JONES as modified does not teach wherein the power transmission unit further includes: a sun gear configured to be rotatable coaxially with the second gear, a plurality of planetary gears rotatably engaging an outer circumferential surface of the sun gear, and a ring gear having an inner circumferential surface rotatably engaging the planetary gears and configured to be rotatable coaxially with the sun gear.
GUTELIUS teaches wherein the power transmission unit further includes: a sun gear (86) configured to be rotatable coaxially with the second gear (98), a plurality of planetary gears (88) rotatably engaging an outer circumferential surface of the sun gear (86), and a ring gear (82) having an inner circumferential surface rotatably engaging the planetary gears (88) and configured to be rotatable coaxially with the sun gear (86).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the transmission in JONES as modified so it uses the gear transmission in GUTELIUS so the motor and transmission packaging is a suitable size and shape for a given application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the “pressurizing unit” is formed as an independent unit from the brake shoe while the parts in King are formed as part of a structure that more closely corresponds to the brake shoes (Remarks pg. 7 para. 4).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the pressurizing unit is formed as an independent unit from the brake shoes) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that the references do not teach a pin receiving-hole provided in a shape open on one side (Remarks pg. 7 para. 6).
KING teaches a hole (hole for pin 90) with an opening on one side (the hole is open the side pin 90 enters the hole and open on a side the pin exits the hole).
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 HENRY Y LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-7018. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30 ET.
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 W HODGE can be reached at 5712722097. 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.
HENRY Y. LIU
Examiner
Art Unit 3654
/HENRY Y LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights