DETAILED ACTION
The following is a response to the amendment filed 6/10/2026 which has been entered.
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
Claims 1 and 17-30 are pending in the application. Claims 2-16 are cancelled.
-The drawing objection has been withdrawn due to applicant amending claim 1 and cancelling claims 2-16 accordingly.
-The specification objection has been withdrawn due to applicant amending the abstract, specification and claim 1 and further, cancelling claims 2-16 accordingly.
-The claim interpretation has been withdrawn due to applicant amending claim 1 and cancelling claim 3 accordingly.
-The 112(a) and 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn due to applicant amending claim 1 and cancelling claims 2 and 10 accordingly.
-The 102 and 103 rejections have been withdrawn due to applicant amending claim 1 with limitations not disclosed by the prior art of record used in the rejections.
-The double patenting rejection has been withdrawn due to applicant amending claim 1 accordingly.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
-“a friction part (generic placeholder)………configured to contact the brake shoe (function)” in claim 1.
-“a support member (generic placeholder)……….having a first end configured to support an inner side of the outer circumferential surface of the body part (function)” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 17-23 and 25-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dach 2288438 in view of Holton 2840195, JP 2008151160 (with machine translation) and Huschenhoefer et al 20210156439. As to claim 1, Dach discloses a drum brake provided with a drum (1) configured to contact a brake shoe (column 1, lines 1-4) to generate a frictional force, comprising: a cylindrical body part (2) having one open side (as shown in Figure 1); and a friction part coupled to an inner circumferential surface of the body part and configured to contact the brake shoe (column 1, line 52 to column 2, line 3), wherein the body part includes: a cavity (9 or 12) interposed between an outer circumferential surface of the body part (surface near 2) and the inner circumferential surface of the body part (surface near 3) such that a space is formed therebetween; and a support member (9’ or 10) disposed within the cavity and having a first end configured to support an inner side of the outer circumferential surface of the body part (portion of 9’ or 10 closest to surface near 2) and a second end configured to support an outer side of the inner circumferential surface of the body part (portion of 9’ or 10 closest to surface near 3). However, Dach doesn’t disclose that a material forming the body part is lighter than a material forming the friction part as recited.
Holton discloses a drum brake provided with a drum (14) comprising: a cylindrical body part (14) having one open side (as shown in Figure 2); and a friction part (10) coupled to an inner circumferential surface of the body part and further discloses that it is well known in the art to have a material of the body part lighter than a material forming the friction part (column 2, lines 12-21 describes that 14 is formed of aluminum or alloy and 10 is formed of cast iron).
JP discloses a drum brake provided with a drum (12) comprising: a cylindrical body part (12) having one open side (as shown in Figure 1); and a friction part (14) coupled to an inner circumferential surface of the body part and further discloses that it is well known in the art to have a material of the body part lighter than a material forming the friction part (abstract describes that 12 is formed of aluminum and 14 is formed of cast iron).
Huschenhoefer discloses a drum brake provided with a drum (2) comprising: a cylindrical body part (2) having one open side (as shown in Figure 2); and a friction part (8) coupled to an inner circumferential surface of the body part and further discloses that it is well known in the art to have a material of the body part lighter than a material forming the friction part (abstract and [0004] describes that 2 is formed of plastic and [0008] describes that 8 is formed of ceramic).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the body part in Dach with a lighter material than the friction part material in view of Holton, JP and Huschenhoefer to improve vehicle performance by reducing overall weight of brake which enhances fuel efficiency. Further, lighter drums can provide quicker heat dissipation which reduces the risk of brake fade during hard braking usage.
As to claim 17, Dach in view of Holton, JP and Huschenhoefer discloses wherein the material forming the friction part includes at least one of cast iron or ceramic (column 2, lines 12-21 describes that 10 is formed of cast iron in Holton; abstract describes that 14 is formed of cast iron in JP and [0008] describes that 8 is formed of ceramic in Huschenhoefer).
As to claim 18, Dach in view of Holton, JP and Huschenhoefer discloses wherein the material forming the body part includes at least one of aluminum, phenolic resin, or plastic (column 2, lines 12-21 describes that 14 is formed of aluminum in Holton; abstract describes that 12 is formed of aluminum in JP and abstract and [0004] describes that 2 is formed of plastic in Huschenhoefer).
As to claim 19, Dach in view of Holton discloses, wherein the friction part comprises a plurality of friction parts (Holton discloses 10 having a plurality of parts as shown in Figures 1 and 2).
As to claim 20, Dach in view of Holton discloses, wherein the friction parts are spaced apart from each other in an axial direction of the body part (as shown in Figure 2 in Holton).
As to claim 21, Dach in view of JP discloses, wherein the body part includes a recessed groove (12b in JP) recessed in the inner circumferential surface thereof, and the friction part includes a protrusion (14b in JP) protruding toward the body part and configured to be inserted into the recessed groove (as shown in Figure 1 in JP).
As to claim 22, Dach in view of JP discloses, wherein the protrusion is press-fitted into the recessed groove (as shown in Figure 1 in JP).
As to claim 23, Dach in view of Huschenhoefer discloses, wherein the body part includes a through-hole passing through the body part from the inner circumferential surface thereof to the outer circumferential surface thereof, and the friction part includes a protrusion protruding toward the body part and passing through the through-hole (Figure 5 in Huschenhoefer shows protrustions 14 that are described in [0015] as extending from 8 through openings in 2).
As to claim 25, Dach in view of JP discloses, wherein the friction part is adhesively coupled to the body part through an adhesive (JP discloses that the drum and lining can be coupled via molten metal solidification which can be considered an adhesive).
As to claim 26, Dach discloses, wherein the support member comprises a plurality of support members (multiple positions for the support member (9’ or 10) are shown in Figure 1 via where 6 is disposed between 2 and 3).
As to claim 27, Dach discloses, wherein the plurality of support members are spaced apart from each other along the outer side of the inner circumferential surface of the body part (multiple positions for the support member (9’ or 10) are shown in Figure 1 via where 6 is disposed closer to surface 3).
As to claim 28, Dach discloses, wherein the plurality of support members are arranged radially symmetrical to each other with respect to a central axis of the body part (multiple positions for the support member (9’ or 10) are shown in Figure 1 via where 6 is disposed which are radially symmetrically situated with respect to center).
As to claim 29, Dach discloses, wherein the plurality of support members are arranged radially symmetrical to each other with respect to a central axis of the body part (multiple positions for the support member (9’ or 10) are shown in Figure 1 via where 6 is disposed which are radially symmetrically situated with respect to center).
As to claim 30, Dach discloses, wherein the support member is made of a material including at least one of aluminum, phenolic resin, or plastic (Dach describes that the inserts (at least 10) can be made from a soft material similar to brass column 3, lines 40-42, which can encompass aluminum).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record doesn’t disclose or render obvious a motivation to provide for:
-(as to claim 24 in combination with claims 1 and 23 exactly as written)……. wherein the protrusion has a threaded outer surface, the drum brake further comprising a nut coupled to a distal end of the protrusion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-CN 210769930 (Figure 1) discloses a brake drum having a cylindrical body part (2) and a friction part (between 2 and 13) and shows that it is well known in the art to provide a support member (5) within a cavity (6) having a first end supporting an inner side of the outer circumference of the body part and a second end supporting an outer side of the inner circumference of the body part (as shown in Figure 1).
-Norton (Figure 1) discloses a brake drum having a cylindrical body part (2) and a friction part (3) and shows that it is well known in the art to provide the friction part with a protrusion (5) press-fitted within a recessed groove in the body part (as shown in Figure 1).
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 TISHA D LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7093. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30am to 5:00pm.
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, Anna M Momper can be reached at 571-270-5788. 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.
Tdl
/TISHA D LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 August 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights