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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “141c” (fig. 3).
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. 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because a) it exceeds 150 words and b) it contains implied phrases (e.g. “Disclosed herein”).
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 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 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ko (DE 102021206431 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Ko discloses (figs. 1-6) An electro-mechanical drum brake (1) with a pair of brake shoes (abstract at least) and configured to be movable forward or backward with respect to an inner circumferential side of a drum (abstract at least), the electro-mechanical drum brake comprising:
an actuator unit (100) configured to move the brake shoes forward and backward in opposite directions to each other (as shown); and
at least one elastic member (40) disposed between the pair of brake shoes;
wherein the actuator unit includes:
a worm shaft (133) operably coupled to a bearing (136) disposed between an outer circumferential side of the worm shaft (as shown) and a housing of the actuator (e.g. 110,113, housing of 30 at least, alternatively the bearing is radially between these components at least), wherein the worm shaft has a worm (134) disposed at a front end portion (fig. 4, right side) of the worm shaft and is configured to be rotatable by a rotational force output from a motor (as described, see motor operation);
a piston (e.g. 210) configured to be rotatable by a worm wheel (135) rotatably engaged with the worm (as shown) to transmit a rotational force from the worm to move the brake shoes forward or backward (as shown); and
a worm shaft support (116) fixed to the housing to support a rear surface of the bearing (fig. 4 at least, as shown).
Regarding claim 17, Ko discloses (figs. 1-6) the worm shaft is coupled with an other bearing (137) disposed between an outer circumferential surface of the front end portion of the worm shaft (as shown) and the housing (at 30, as shown).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko (DE 102021206431 A1) in view of Yamasaki et al. (U.S. 2012/0181137 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Ko does not appear to disclose the details of the bearing structure. In the same field of endeavor of electromechanical brake actuators, Yamasaki teaches (fig. 1) a shaft (4) rotationally driven by a motor (2), where the shaft is supported on a housing piece (8) via a bearing (9), wherein the bearing includes a ball bearing (as shown) including an outer ring secured between the housing (at 8) and the worm shaft support (at the snap ring to the right of the outer race), and an inner ring fixed to an outer circumferential surface of the worm shaft to rotate with the worm shaft (as shown).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have embodied the bearing of Ko as a ball bearing as suggested by Yamasaki to utilize a known bearing structure in a known environment to yield predictable results. Since Ko already discloses a bearing (136), providing the structure of the bearing of Yamasaki at this location involves only routine skill in the art. Upon making the modification, both inventions operate the same after combining as they did separately from one another, and the modification does not render Ko unsuitable for its intended purposes. Further, ball bearings are known structure to support shafts relatively rotatable to their respective housings or mountings, so doing so within the environment of Ko would result in a suitable bearing support for the worm shaft.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko (DE 102021206431 A1) in view of Stubbersfield (U.S. 4701061).
Regarding claim 18, Ko does not appear to disclose the structure of the other bearing. Stubbersfield teaches a bearing assembly (10) for a brake shaft, the bearing includes a cylindrical roller bearing (as shown) including a body (outer race 16) press-fittingly fixed into the housing (13), and a plurality of rollers (21) rotatably supporting the outer circumferential surface (as shown) of the front end portion of the shaft (11). In order to arrive at the claimed invention, the “other bearing” of Ko would be embodied as a needle bearing, as suggested by Stubbersfield.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have embodied the bearing of Ko as a ball bearing as suggested by Stubbersfield to utilize a known bearing structure in a known environment to yield predictable results. Since Ko already discloses a bearing (137), providing the structure of the bearing of Stubbersfield at this location involves only routine skill in the art. Upon making the modification, both inventions operate the same after combining as they did separately from one another, and the modification does not render Ko unsuitable for its intended purposes. Further, needle bearings are known structure to support shafts relatively rotatable to their respective housings or mountings, so doing so within the environment of Ko would result in a suitable bearing support for the worm shaft that is equally beneficial, while also having low rolling resistance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 are allowed. Claims 19-20 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if rewritten to overcome any 112(b) rejections, as appropriate.
Reasons for allowance, if applicable, will be the subject of a separate communication to the Applicant or patent owner, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.104 and MPEP § 1302.14.
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 R MORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616