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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Para 2 of specification describes a co-pending application 17713317. It is suggested by the Examiner to replace the application number with its Pre-Grant Publication number US-2023/0311820-A1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-15, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US-1332487-A to Dale (“Dale”).
Regarding Claim 1, Dale discloses a wheel end assembly (Page 1 lines 36-82, Figs 1-4) comprising: a spindle (B “tubing” on A “axle”, Page 1 lines 95-101, Fig 1); a brake rotor (C “hub” with E “female member” mounted in recess 6, Page 1 lines 102-1-4, 107-109, Fig 1) 11 that is rotatable about an axis ( centerline of A, B, C, Fig 1) with respect to the spindle; and a parking brake (sliding F “male member” encircled inside by E, surrounding B Page 1, lines 9-14, lines 44-82, 110-page 2 line 24, Fig 1) that is radially disposed between (Fig 1) the spindle and the brake rotor, the parking brake being operable to apply a brake torque to inhibit rotation of the brake rotor about the axis (frictional surfaces apply braking force upon incline, thus having vertical and horizontal components, the vertical component thus creating a torque on at connection of 8 to flange of C “hub” [ i.e. brake rotor] , Page 1 lines 44-55, Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 2, Dale discloses the wheel end assembly of claim 1 wherein the parking brake encircles the spindle (F encircles B, shown Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Dale discloses the wheel end assembly of claim 1 wherein the brake rotor encircles the parking brake (E mounted to C, encircles F Fig 1)
Regarding Claim 4, Dale discloses the wheel end assembly of claim 1 wherein the brake rotor further comprises a friction surface (10 “inner wall” in 13 of E, Page 2 lines 9-14, Fig 1) that faces toward the axis (Fig 1) and the parking brake further comprises a friction member (16 “friction material” on F, Page 2 line 24-28, Fig 1) that is engageable with the friction surface to provide the brake torque (as described in paragraph 5 of this document).
Regarding Claim 5, Dale discloses the wheel end assembly of claim 4 wherein the friction surface encircles the friction member (10 on E, 11 on F, E encircles F, as described in in paragraphs 5 and 8 of this document).
Regarding Claim 6, Dale discloses the wheel end assembly of claim 4 wherein the friction surface is disposed at an oblique angle (Fig 1, Page 1 lines 44-55, Page 2 lines 12-14, lines 24-28) with respect to the axis.
Regarding Claim 7, Dale discloses the wheel end assembly of claim 4 wherein the parking brake further comprises a parking brake body (F including 13 “hub”, Page 1, lines 58-63, Fig 1), wherein the friction member is fixedly disposed on (Page 2 liens 24-28, Fig 1) the parking brake body.
Regarding Claim 8, Dale discloses the wheel end assembly of claim 7 wherein the parking brake body is moveable along the axis between a first position (“engagement” position”, Page 2 lines 68-69, shown Fig 1) in which the friction member engages the friction surface of the brake rotor and a second position (“retracted position”, Page 2 lines 70-82) in which the friction member does not engage the friction surface of the brake rotor.
Regarding Claim 9, Dale discloses the wheel end assembly of claim 7 wherein the parking brake body and the spindle have mating splines (12 “spline” in B and slidably mount 13 of F, Page 2 lines 16-24, Fig 1) that permit the parking brake body to move axially (Page 1 lines 58-59), page 2 lines 16-24) with respect to the spindle.
Regarding Claim 10, Dale discloses the wheel end assembly of claim 7 wherein the parking brake further comprises a biasing member (springs 31, 32, Page 2 lines 58-82, and spring 39 Page 2 lines 101-113) Fig 1) that urges the parking brake body to move along the axis.
Regarding Claim 11, Dale discloses the wheel end assembly of claim 10 wherein the biasing member is radially disposed (Fig 1) between the parking brake body and the spindle.
Regarding Claim 12, Dale discloses the wheel end assembly of claim 10 wherein the parking brake body encircles (Fig 1) the biasing member and the biasing member encircles (Fig 1) the spindle.
Regarding Claim 13, Dale discloses the wheel end assembly of claim 10 wherein the parking brake further comprises a retainer (33 “collar” and body 13 of F to which it is integrally mounted, Page 2 lines 74-113, Fig 1) that is fixedly positioned (“F stationary on B”, Page 2 line 113) with respect to the spindle, wherein the biasing member (39 spring) extends between (Fig 1, 2) the retainer and the parking brake body.
Regarding Claim 14, Dale discloses the wheel end assembly of claim 13 wherein the spindle further comprises a spline (12), the retainer further comprises a retainer spline (as described in paragraphs 13 and 17 of this document), and the retainer spline mates with (as described in paragraph 13 of this document) the spline to inhibit movement of the retainer with respect to the spindle.
Regarding Claim 15, Dale discloses the wheel end assembly of claim 7 wherein the parking brake further comprises an actuator (“arms” 27 and 28 , having springs 32, 32 connected to each and to F , and 25 “collar” with spring 39 connected to , Page 2 lines 63-129, Fig 1, 2) that urges the parking brake body to move along the axis.
Regarding Claim 18, Dale discloses the wheel end assembly of claim 15 wherein the actuator engages the parking brake body and encircles the spindle (27 28 arms on 33, and 25 collar encircle spindle, as described in previous paragraph as shown Fig 1, 2).
Regarding Claim 19, Dale discloses the wheel end assembly of claim 15 wherein the parking brake further comprises a fastener (34, 35 “bolts”, Page 2 lines 78-86, Fig 1, 3) that is fixedly disposed on the spindle, wherein the actuator extends between the fastener and the parking brake body.
Regarding Claim 20, Dale discloses the wheel end assembly of claim 15 wherein the actuator is radially disposed between (shown Fig 1) the spindle and the parking brake body.
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.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dale as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of US-6550870-B1 to Goodzey (“Goodzey”).
Regarding Claim 16, Dale discloses the wheel end assembly of claim 15, but does not disclose wherein the actuator is inflatable with a fluid and the parking brake body moves away from the brake rotor when the actuator is inflated with the fluid.
Goodzey discloses a parking brake (16) in which an actuator (12 “actuator” of 22 hydraulic arrangement, Col 2 lines 64-57, Col 3 lines 1-33, Fig 1) is inflatable with a fluid (pressurized fluid in 23 chamber) and the parking brake body moves away from (second position, fluid in 23 chamber moves friction linings out of engagement with drum”) the brake rotor when the actuator is inflated with the fluid (Col 3 lines 24-33).
The difference between the disclosure in the claimed invention and the prior art, is that the prior art does not disclose the wheel end assembly and the actuator is inflatable with a fluid and the parking brake body moves away from the brake rotor when the actuator is inflated with the fluid, in a single combined apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the wheel end assembly of Dale and teaching of the actuator is inflatable with a fluid and the parking brake body moves away from the brake rotor when the actuator is inflated with the fluid of Goodzey to modify the actuator of Dale such that it includes a hydraulic actuator inflated with fluid that moves the parking brake away from the brake rotor when filled with fluid (like Goodzey), as an alternative actuator, [i.e. a simple substitution to achieve an equivalent result]: with the motivation to employ a more reliable and durable hydraulic mechanism to moving the brake to the disengaged position, having an expectation of equivalent function and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 17, Dale discloses the wheel end assembly of claim 15, but does not disclose wherein the parking brake body further comprises a fluid passage that extends through the parking brake body and is fluidly connected to the actuator.
Goodzey discloses a parking brake (16) further comprises a fluid passage (36 “outlet port” Fig 1) that extends through the parking brake body (connects fluid action of 12 to move friction linings in 15 drum, Col 3 lines 14-33, Fig 1) is fluidly connected to an actuator (12 “actuator” of 22 hydraulic arrangement Col 2 lines 64-57, Col 3 lines 1-33, Fig 1).
The difference between the disclosure in the claimed invention and the prior art, is that the prior art does not disclose the wheel end assembly and the fluid passage that extends through the parking brake body and is fluidly connected to the actuator in a single combined apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the wheel end assembly of Dale and the teaching of the fluid passage that extends through the parking brake body and is fluidly connected to the actuator of Lewis, to modify the actuator of the wheel end assembly of Dale such that it includes the fluid passage that extends through the parking brake body and is fluidly connected to the actuator (like Goodzey), as an alternative actuator, [i.e. a simple substitution to achieve an equivalent result] with the motivation to employ a more reliable and durable hydraulic mechanism to moving the brake to the disengaged position, having an expectation of equivalent function and a reasonable expectation of success.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lewis (WO-2019028329-A1), Kitano (EP-3239553-B1), Maltais-Larouchce (WO-2019106452-A1), Stanley (US-5385216), Holk (US-2227584) and Schradin (DE-10006315-A1) disclose wheel assemblies and/or parking brakes having brake disc and or brake drum.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVA LYNN COMINO whose telephone number is (571)270-5839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Joe Morano can be reached at 571-272-6684. 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.
/EVA L COMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615