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 .
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 (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 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) 1-5, 7, 13-14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Walter Emll Saunders (GB – 2451880 A).
As per claim 1, Sunders discloses Brake Disc Assembly comprising:
a hub (10, Fig: 1-2) having an axle axis (Fig: 1-2) and a plurality of spokes (20, Fig: 1-2), each spoke having therein a groove (18, Fig: 1-2);
a disc (11, Fig: 1-2) having a center aperture (Fig: 1-2) where the hub (10) is positioned (Fig: 1-2), the disc having a plurality of tabs (22, Fig: 1-2) around a periphery of the center aperture (Fig: 1-2), each tab having therein a groove and each tab aligned with one spoke such that the groove on each tab is aligned with a groove on each spoke (Fig: 1); and
a retainer (12, Fig: 1-2) positioned in each aligned groove on the hub and each groove on the disc to secure the disc to the hub and to enable the disc to move radially relative to the axle axis (Disc Brake Assembly, [0017], Fig: 1-2).
As per claim 2, Sunders discloses wherein the retainer includes a wire (The locking ring 12 is formed of spring steel, so that it’s a wire, Fig: 2)..
As per claim 3, Sunders discloses wherein the retainer is a single wire (12, Fig: 2).
As per claim 4, Sunders discloses wherein the plurality of spokes (20) is at least three spokes (Fig: 1-2).
As per claim 5, Sunders discloses wherein each spoke includes a pair of arms (17, Fig: 1-2) and wherein each arm includes the groove of the hub (18, Fig: 1-2).
As per claim 7, Sunders discloses wherein each spoke (20, Fig: 1-2) includes a pair of arms (17, Fig: 1-2) defining a pocket therebetween (18, Fig: 1-2) and wherein one tab is positioned in each pocket (Fig: 1).
As per claim 13, Sunders discloses Brake Disc Assembly comprising:
a disc (11, Fig: 1-2) having a center aperture (Fig: 1-2) and having a first surface plane and a second surface plane (21 on both side, Fig: 1-2);
a hub (10, Fig: 1-2) positioned in the center aperture (Fig: 1-2) and having an axle axis (Fig: 1-2) and retaining portions (20, Fig: 1-2) that engage with the disc; and
a retainer (12, Fig: 1-2) securing the disc to the retaining portions of the hub to enable the disc to move radially relative to the axle axis such that the retainer and retaining portions are positioned between the first surface plane and the second surface plane (Brake Disc Assembly, [0016], Fig: 1-2).
As per claim 14, Sunders discloses wherein the retainer (12) includes a wire (12, Fig: 1-2).
As per claim 19, Sunders discloses wherein the hub (10, Fig: 1-2) includes a plurality of pockets (18, Fig: 1-2), wherein the disc (11, Fig: 1-2) includes a plurality of tabs (22, Fig: 1-2), wherein one tab is positioned in each pocket (Fig: 1-2), and wherein the raceway runs through each tabs and each pocket (Attached figure and Fig: 1-2).
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.
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) 6, 8-12, 15-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walter Emll Saunders (GB – 2451880 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Izumine (US – 4,821,848).
As per claim 6, Sunders discloses all the structural elements of the claim invention but fails to explicitly disclose wherein each tab includes a pair of projections and the groove in each tab is positioned between the projections.
Izumine discloses Brake Disk comprising:
each tab (6, Fig: 3a, 3b) includes a pair of projections (7, Fig: 3b) and the groove (9, Fig: 3b) in each tab is positioned between the projections (Fig: 3a, 3b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Brake Disc Assembly of the Sunders to make the wherein each tab includes a pair of projections and the groove in each tab is positioned between the projections as taught by Izumine in order to prevent a backlash or improper engagement at the joint of the braking section with the hub section is effectively checked by the dish-shaped springs so that no noise may be generated.
As per claim 8, Sunders discloses Brake Disc Assembly comprising:
a disc (11, Fig: 1-2) having a center aperture (Fig: 1-2);
a hub (10, Fig: 1-2) positioned in the center aperture and having an axle axis (Fig: 1-2);
a plurality of tabs on one of the disc (22, Fig: 1-2) and the hub (17, Fig: 1-2) and a plurality of pockets on the other of the disc and the hub, wherein one tab is positioned in each pocket (18, Fig: 1-2); and
at least one retainer (12, Fig: 1-2) running along the raceway to secure the disc (11) to the hub (10) and to enable the disc to move radially relative to the axle axis (Fig: 1-2),
a raceway defined by a path through each of the plurality of pockets (Attached figure and Fig: 1-2).
Sunders discloses all the structural elements of the claim invention but fails to explicitly disclose a raceway defined by a path through each of the plurality of tabs.
PNG
media_image1.png
698
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Izumine discloses Brake Disk comprising:
a raceway (9, Fig: 3b) defined by a path through each of the plurality of tabs(5, Fig: 3a, 3b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Brake Disc Assembly of the Sunders to make the a raceway defined by a path through each of the plurality of tabs as taught by Izumine in order to prevent a backlash or improper engagement at the joint of the braking section with the hub section is effectively checked by the dish-shaped springs so that no noise may be generated.
As per claim 9, Sunders discloses wherein the at least one retainer is a single wire (12, Fig: 1-2).
As per claim 10, Sunders discloses wherein the at least one retainer includes a wire (12, Fig: 1-2).
As per claim 11, Sunders discloses wherein the disc (11) includes the plurality of tabs (22) and the hub (10) includes the plurality of pockets (18, 20, Fig: 1-2).
As per claim 12, Sunders discloses wherein the pocket (18) is positioned between two arms (17, Fig: 1-2).
As per claim 15, Sunders discloses wherein the hub (10) has a plurality of grooves (Attached figure and Fig: 1-2) and wherein the retainer (12) is positioned in a raceway defined by a path of the plurality of grooves (Attached figure and Fig: 1-2).
Sunders discloses all the structural elements of the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose the disc has a plurality of grooves.
Izumine discloses Brake Disk comprising:
the disc (2, Fig: 3a, 3b) has a plurality of grooves (9, 11, Fig: 3a, 3b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Brake Disc Assembly of the Sunders to make the disc has a plurality of grooves as taught by Izumine in order to prevent a backlash or improper engagement at the joint of the braking section with the hub section is effectively checked by the dish-shaped springs so that no noise may be generated.
As per claim 16, Izumine further disclose wherein the grooves of the disc are aligned with the grooves on the hub (Fig: 1-2).
As per claim 17, Sunders discloses wherein the retaining portions include spokes (20, Fig: 1-2) that include the grooves (18, Fig: 1-2) on the hub (10, Fig: 1-2).
As per claim 18, Izumine further disclose wherein the disc has a plurality of tabs (6, Fig: 3a, 3b) including the grooves (9,11, Fig: 3a, 3b).
As per claim 20, Izumine further disclose wherein the retaining portions (7, 9, Fig: 3a, 3b) are positioned to be centered between the first surface plane and the second surface plane (Fig: 3a, 3b).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A: RANKIN et al. (US – 2018/0180123 A1),
B: Burgoon et al. (US – 2017/0002878 A1),
C: Metzen Hans-Peter (DE – 19648582 A1), and
D: Bauer Juergen (DE – 10358088 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAN M AUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5792. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:30 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.
/SAN M AUNG/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616