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 .
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 1-16 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.
Claim 1 recites “its wear limit.” There is no established definition of a wear limit as a general definition for this feature. Some references could use a set amount of friction lining thickness decrease, some references may use a positional relationship, others may use characteristics of the slip or clutching quality to designate a wear limit. As such, it is not clear in this context what characteristic may be used as a wear limit since there is no frame of reference or further description in the claim. In addition, there is no special definition of this feature. It is unclear what standard or limitation is used to determine where a wear limit is based on the claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moseley (US 4,658,936).
Claim 1
Moseley discloses a brake comprising a device for ascertaining a wear limit, the brake comprising:
a housing (24 or 16);
at least one first brake body (32 or 34), at least one second brake body (34 or 32) and a pressure piece unit (26 and/or 30) comprising a pressure piece (26) which can be moved relative to the housing in a first direction in order to press the at least one first brake body and the at least one second brake body against each other for the purpose of braking and in a second direction in order to release the brake (see column 2, lines 33-41); and
a sensor (40 including e.g., 42, 44, 62) designed to detect a positional relationship between itself and a detection surface formed on the pressure piece unit (see column 2, lines 52-58), wherein
if the brake has not reached its wear limit, the positional relationship between the sensor and the detection surface does not change during the movement of the pressure piece in the first direction (see column 3, lines 23-34 describing that the probe moves only when there is wear), and
if the brake has reached its wear limit (interpreted as wear occurring), the positional relationship between the sensor and the detection surface changes during the movement of the pressure piece in the first direction due to a relative movement between the sensor and the detection surface (see column 3, lines 23-34).
Claim 14
Moseley discloses a second brake body holder (splines of 16) which can be rotated about a rotational axis relative to the housing (24), wherein the at least one first brake body (32) is fastened, such that it cannot be rotated, to the housing (24) or to a first brake body holder (splines of 22), and the at least one second brake body (34) is fastened, such that it cannot be rotated, to the second brake body holder (16).
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fliege (DE 19743659A1).
Claim 1
Fliege discloses a brake comprising a device for ascertaining a wear limit, the brake comprising (see any of FIGS. 1-8, with reference made to FIG. 1 where equivalent structure in other embodiments is interpreted in the same manner):
a housing (5);
at least one first brake body (9), at least one second brake body (27) and a pressure piece unit (8) comprising a pressure piece (8) which can be moved relative to the housing (5) in a first direction in order to press the at least one first brake body and the at least one second brake body against each other for the purpose of braking and in a second direction in order to release the brake (see FIGS. 1 or 2, general operation of the brake based on the figures would be readily understood and the engaging and disengaging movements of the pressure plate 8 are described generally); and
a sensor (15) designed to detect a positional relationship between itself and a detection surface (surface of pin 2) formed on the pressure piece unit (see e.g., description of the sensor 15 detecting the path of the indicator pin 2 relative to its housing 1), wherein
if the brake has not reached its wear limit, the positional relationship between the sensor and the detection surface does not change during the movement of the pressure piece in the first direction (see description in translation “that the indicator pin 2 can be moved out of the housing 1, but is then fixed in its position and does not fall back when the feeler pin 13 moves back. This is to prevent the indicator pin 2 from following the engagement and disengagement movements of the pressure plate. Outside half of the housing 1 , a sensor 15 connected to an evaluation unit 18 is provided, which detects the path of the indicator pin 2 out of the housing 1”), and
if the brake has reached its wear limit (interpreted as wear occurring sufficient to move the pin relative to the housing), the positional relationship between the sensor and the detection surface changes during the movement of the pressure piece in the first direction due to a relative movement between the sensor and the detection surface (see description in translation of “The arrangement of the sensor 15 is selected so that it detects when the indicator pin 2 has moved so far out of the housing 1 that the wear limit of the clutch has been reached”).
Claim 2
Fliege discloses for wherein the sensor is an inductive sensor (see description of FIG. 8 sensor being inductive).
Claim 3
Fliege discloses wherein the sensor (15) is designed to output a signal (described as being connected to the evaluation unit 18 which generates a signal indicating wear) from which the change in the positional relationship can be ascertained.
Claim 4
Fliege discloses wherein if the brake has reached its wear limit (the amount at which the sensor moves), the pressure piece can be moved during its movement in the first direction by a first distance, at which the positional relationship between the sensor and the detection surface does not change (movement prior to the sensor registering wear), and by a second distance at which the positional relationship does change due to a relative movement between the sensor and the detection surface (movement over the amount necessary to indicate wear).
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dahlen et al. (US 6,076,639; hereinafter “Dahlen”).
Claim 1
Dhalen discloses a brake comprising a device for ascertaining a wear limit, the brake comprising:
a housing (2);
at least one first brake body (8 or 10), at least one second brake body (10 or 8) and a pressure piece unit (e.g., 4, 16, 18, 20) comprising a pressure piece (4) which can be moved relative to the housing in a first direction in order to press the at least one first brake body and the at least one second brake body against each other for the purpose of braking and in a second direction in order to release the brake (see FIG. 1); and
a sensor (“electric sensor”) designed to detect a positional relationship between itself and a detection surface formed on the pressure piece unit (see last paragraph of specification as “electric sensor” which senses the protruding length of the rod to read the wear remotely), wherein
if the brake has not reached its wear limit (sufficient wear to allow the sensor to read a protrusion of the rod), the positional relationship between the sensor and the detection surface does not change during the movement of the pressure piece in the first direction, and
if the brake has reached its wear limit (interpreted as wear occurring sufficient to protrude the rod outward to an extent that is detectable by the sensor described), the positional relationship between the sensor and the detection surface changes during the movement of the pressure piece in the first direction due to a relative movement between the sensor and the detection surface (see column 3, lines 23-34).
Claim 5
Dhalen discloses wherein the pressure piece unit (4, 16, 18, 20) comprises a detection body (16 and/or 18) which can be moved relative to the pressure piece (4), and which comprises the detection surface (right end of 18 in FIG. 1, end that is detected by the disclosed electric sensor).
Claim 6
Dhalen discloses wherein the pressure piece unit (4, 16, 18, 20) comprises an abutment (20) which is designed to block a movement of the detection body (16 and/or 18) towards the sensor. In the last paragraph of the specification, the description states that a compression spring may be between the abutment (20) and the tube (16 and/or 18) to hold the rod against the piston, i.e., to stop the rod from moving to the right in FIG. 1.
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlen in view of P.V. et al. (US 2023/0287950; hereinafter “PV”).
Claim 7
Dahlen discloses a sensor can be used to detect the end of rod (18) protruding out of the housing (2) but does not specifically disclose wherein the sensor is fixed relative to the housing. However, PV discloses a brake with an actuator housing (26) and a sensor (22) fixed to the housing (see e.g., FIG. 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified Dahlen so that the sensor that is disclosed for detecting the end of rod (18) is fixed to the housing (2) which is at the proper location, in order to support the sensor relative to the device.
Claim(s) 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moseley in view of Dahlen.
Claim 12
Moseley discloses wherein the housing (24) and a shaft (18, 12, 14), which is mounted such that it can be rotated about the rotational axis relative to the housing (24) and to which the at least one second brake body (32) is connected such that it cannot be rotated, the housing (24) and shaft (18, 12, 14) enclose an accommodating space, wherein the pressure piece unit (26) and at least partially the sensor () are arranged in the accommodating space (see FIG. 1).
Moseley does not disclose that the housing and shaft enclose an accommodating space which is at least partially filled with oil. However, Dahlen discloses that a brake with axially engaging friction plates, akin to Moseley, is a wet brake which is arranged in a bath of oil to provide more effective cooling and thus reduce wear (see column 2, lines 41-47). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified Moseley to include oil within the brake arrangement in order to improve cooling and/or reduce wear.
Claim 13
Moseley discloses wherein the at least one first brake body (34) and the at least one second brake body (32) are arranged in the accommodating space (see FIG. 1).
Claim(s) 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moseley in view of PV.
Claim 15
Moseley does not disclose a pressure space which is designed such that when it is pressurized by a fluid, it moves the pressure piece (Moseley, 26) in the second direction. However, PV discloses a brake with a wear sensor in which the actuator plate is actuated by a pressure piece (82) which is moved by filing a pressure space (“pressure chamber”) with fluid (see paragraph [0058]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified Moseley so that the pressure plate were moved by a piston actuated by fluid in a pressure space/chamber in order to provide smooth and precise actuation of the brake.
Claim 16
Moseley as modified discloses at least one biased brake spring (62) which acts on the pressure piece (30) and moves the pressure piece (30) in the first direction (to the right in FIG. 2) when the pressure space (added according to the rejection of claim 15) is relieved of pressure, and which is tensed by pressurizing the pressure space and the resultant movement of the pressure piece in the second direction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11 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.
With reference to claim 8, the prior art does not disclose or render obvious a brake comprising the combination of features as recited including “wherein the pressure piece unit also comprises a spring which tenses the detection body in a direction towards the sensor.” The closest prior art is Dahlen however the relevant spring in Dahlen acts in the opposite direction and could not be reversed without entirely altering how the sensor operates. Other references with a spring in the correct direction do not include the proper sensor related to/interacting with the pressure piece unit/piston in the manner recited.
With reference to claim 9, the prior art does not disclose or render obvious a brake comprising the combination of features as recited including “wherein the abutment is formed by an abutment part which is accommodated, together with the detection body, in a recess or bore in the pressure piece, wherein the detection body is arranged axially between the abutment part and the pressure piece, and the spring is supported on the detection body and the pressure piece.” The closest prior art to this feature is Dahlen in which the sensor and part of the detection body is outside of the housing which is on an opposite side of the housing relative to the recess in the pressure piece.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. DE102012006105A1 discloses a brake with a pressure piece unit (3) with a sensor that detects a positional relationship between the sensor and the pressure piece unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STACEY A FLUHART whose telephone number is (571)270-1851. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9AM-7PM.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
/STACEY A FLUHART/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655